




^ ^ c/ ' ' &\ ***** 



X 

r 






o > 






^ v ^ • 






V * 









: V** 



^9 



<"- 











: : -o v* 






< o 












* 





^ 





Mindful of the difficulties constantly encountered 
in ascertaining quickly and accurately the salient 
facts which, like milestones, have, in the past, marked 
the continuous development and progress of our state 
as the leader of the governments of the world in 
striving to achieve the highest political ideals consis' 
tent with the protection oj the fundamental rights of 
the individual; and realizing that we must have these 
facts at our command if we are to successfully deal 
with the problems of the present and future; to those 
with whom I have been associated for/many/ years 
in this common cause in public lif/ thi* ai>nrh 
dedicated./ J 



Jt^Y/, 




Autograph 

Limited Edition 

of which this is 

Number 3 J / 






STATE OF b 
Political and G< 



George Clinton 

George Clinton, 1st and 3rd governor (1777-1795; 1801-1804) 
and vice-president of the United States; born in Little Britain 
Ulster county, N. Y., July 26, 1739; lawyer, clerk of court 
of common pleas, New York City; member of state assembly, 
1768; elected governor, June 1777; at close of eight successive 
terms- reared from public life until 1801, when again elected- 
served until 1804, when elected vice-president, dying in office 
April 20, 1812, in the City of Washington, D. C 



vc 



HISTORY 

OF THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 
Political and Governmental 



EDITED BY 
RAY B: SMITH 



VOLUME I 
1776 - 1822 

BY 
WILLIS FLETCHER JOHNSON 



THE SYRACUSE PRESS. INC. 

SYRACUSE, N.Y. 

1922 



.S&5" 



Copyrighted 

The Syracuse Press, Inc. 

1922 



FES 16 1924 

©CU778351 



CONTENTS OF VOLUME I 
CHAPTER I 

COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 

Natural advantages 17 

Characteristics of the people 19 

Beginning of real political organization, 1683 21 

Inter-Colonial convention at Albany, 1754 22 

Rise of opposition to British misgovernment 24 

The Stamp act 26 

Sons of Liberty; battle of Golden Hill 29 

The Tea ships 30 

Non-importation 32 

The last Colonial Assembly under the Crown 35 

Preliminaries to Independence 36 

The Declaration 3g 

Founding the State 39 

CHAPTER II, 1776-1777 

ORGANIZING THE STATE 

New York City the theater of war 41 

Battle of Long Island 42 

Perambulations of the State government 43 

Making of the Constitution 44 

Jay and his work 46 

General provisions of the Constitution 48 

Restriction of the franchise 49 

Administrative functions SO 

The judiciary 52 

Report of the Constitution to the Convention 53 

Failure of the Anti-slavery amendment 54 

The Constitution adopted and promulgated 55 

CHAPTER III, 1777-1781 

THE FIRST GOVERNOR 

George Clinton 58 

Candidates for the Governorship 57 

Clinton's election 60 

Inauguration at Kingston 61 

The First Legislature 62 

Ceremonies and amenities 63 

The fall of the Highlands forts 64 

Further perambulations M 65 

Ratification of the Articles of Confederation 67 

Early legislative acts 68 



Second session of the Legislature 69 

Vermont's insurgency 70 

Third session 72 

The Fourth Legislature 73 

Clinton reelected 75 

CHAPTER IV, 1781-1788 

FROM WAR TO PEACE 

The Fifth Legislature 76 

Controversies 77 

The Sixth Legislature 78 

Alexander Hamilton's resolutions of 1782 80 

Peace with Great Britain 82 

Clinton's third election; the Seventh Legislature 83 

The Eighth Legislature 85 

The Ninth Legislature 87 

Fourth election of Clinton; the Tenth Legislature 89 

The Eleventh Legislature 90 

CHAPTER V, 1778-1788 

THE RISE OF PARTIES 

Patriots and loyalists 91 

Governor Clinton's hostility to the tories 92 

The exodus 93 

Imposition of disqualifications 94 

State Rights vs. National Sovereignty 95 

The question of the revenues 96 

Clinton's great contest with Congress 97 

Hamilton's attitude 99 

The Annapolis convention 102 

Election of Delegates to Philadelphia 103 

The National Constitutional convention of 1787 104 

The Poughkeepsie convention 106 

Clinton's discomfiture 108 

CHAPTER VI, 1788-1792 

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 

The Twelfth Legislature 109 

Federalists and Anti-Federalists Ill 

Clinton elected Governor for the fifth time 113 

Hamilton and Jay in the National government 114 

The Thirteenth Legislature 115 

The first United States Senators 116 

Aaron Burr 117 

Philip Schuyler's two offices 119 

John Lansing 121 

The Fourteenth Legislature 122 

The Livingstons 123 



Burr becomes Senator 125 

The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Legislatures 126, 127 

CHAPTER VII, 1792-1795 

CLINTON AND JAY 

Governor Clinton seeks a sixth election 128 

" The Federalists nominate John Jay 129 

Scandals 130 

A disputed election 133 

Clinton awarded the office 136 

Burr's part in the result 137 

Federalist success in 1793; Citizen Genet 141 

The Seventeenth Legislature 142 

The Council of Appointment 143 

The Eighteenth Legislature 146 

First appropriation for primary schools 148 

Clinton retires 149 

CHAPTER VIII, 1795-1798 

JOHN JAY 

The State campaign of 1795 150 

Jay elected Governor 152 

Jay's treaty 153 

Rise of the Democracy; the Nineteenth Legislature 155 

Governor Jay's recommendations 156 

Anti-slavery again suffers defeat 158 

Census of 1796 1 59 

Federalist success continues; the Twentieth Legislature 160 

John Adams elected President 161 

The Twenty-first Legislature 163 

John Sloss Hobart elected Senator 164 

Robert R. Livingston 168 

Jay reelected 171 

CHAPTER IX, 1798-1800 

JAY'S SECOND TERM 

Troubles with France 172 

Governor Jay's support of President Adams 173 

The Twenty-second Legislature 174 

Party strife and machinations 176 

The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions 177 

Burr's Water bill 182 

Effects of the Alien and Sedition laws 183 

Democratic triumph in the spring of 1800 185 

Hamilton's activities; the Twenty-third Legislature 187 

Gouverneur Morris, Senator 190 

Jay rejects Hamilton's advice 193 

The Presidential election of 1800 — Jefferson's victory 196 



The Twenty-fourth Legislature 198 

Jay declines a third nomination 202 

CHAPTER X, 1801 

THE SPOILS SYSTEM 

Jay and the Council of Appointment 203 

George Clinton's seventh election as Governor 210 

The Constitutional convention of 1801 210 

DeWitt Clinton upholds the Council 212 

Governor Clinton's moderation 214 

Domination of DeWitt Clinton 217 

Newspaper polemics 222 

"Aristides" — Van Ness and Cheetham 22+ 

The Swartwout-Clinton duel 227 

Other duels; "Lie on, Duane" 228 

CHAPTER XI, 1802-1804 

THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 

The Twenty-fifth Legislature 230 

DeWitt Clinton elected Senator 232 

Burr in disfavor with the Democrats 233 

The Twenty-sixth Legislature 233 

McClellan's defalcation 235 

DeWitt Clinton appointed Mayor of New York City 236 

The Twenty-seventh Legislature 237 

Burr aspires to the Governorship 238 

Morgan Lewis nominated by the Democrats 240 

Hamilton antagonizes Burr 242 

Lewis elected 245 

Burr challenges Hamilton 246 

The fatal duel 247 

Hamilton's position in history 249, 250 

CHAPTER XII, 1804-1807 

THE NEW ERA 

Governor Lewis's respectable mediocrity 252 

James Kent appointed Chief-Justice 253 

The Twenty-eighth Legislature 254 

The Merchants' Bank 256 

DeWitt Clinton at odds with Lewis 261 

Tammany takes a hand ; the Martling Men 264 

The power of the Livingstons wanes 265 

The Twenty-ninth Legislature 266 

Lewis's apotheosis of the drum 266 

Quarrels over appointments 267 

Bribery and the law 269 

The Federalists make a spurt 270 



CHAPTER XVIII, 1816-1817 

TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 

Tompkins recommended to the Congressional caucus 383 

His fourth election as Governor 384 

Monroe and Crawford 385 

Madison's influence against Tompkins 386 

Van Buren and Spencer 387 

Monroe nominated by the caucus 389 

Tompkins for Vice-President 389 

The Fortieth Legislature 390 

The bill abolishing slavery 390 

Tompkins resigns; becomes Vice-President 393 

Tayler exercises the functions of Governor 393 

Canal progress continues 394 

A case of honest graft 395 

CHAPTER XIX, 1817 

THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 

Canal success in sight 396 

DeWitt Clinton to the fore 397 

Ambrose Spencer's influence in his favor 398 

Van Buren's dilemma 399 

The Democrats nominate Clinton for Governor 401 

The Bucktails; Clinton's overwhelming election 402 

Curious aspects of the result 404 

Governor Clinton's even course 405 

Establishment of Thanksgiving day 406 

"Making good" on the canal 407 

CHAPTER XX, 1818-1819 

DE WITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 

The Forty-first Legislature 408 

Agricultural interests 409 

Tammany and the Bucktails 410 

Van Buren's adroitness 411 

Growing opposition to the Council of Appointment 413 

i he Forty-second Legislature 414 

Contest for Speaker 415 

The Clintonians outgeneraled 416 

They finally win a dubious victory 417 

Reading Clinton out of the party 419 

The futile Senatorial contest of 1819 421 

The Bucktails become good Clintonians 422 

Patronage makes a difference 423 

Van Buren a victim of the spoils system 424 



CHAPTER XXI, 1819-1820 

THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 

Tompkins's accounts 426 

The merits of the case 427 

The Comptroller's view 429 

The Forty-third Legislature 430 

Justice Van Ness 431 

Tompkins nominated for Governor by the Bucktails 432 

Further consideration of the accounts 434 

Federalists support Tompkins 437 

DeWitt Clinton reelected Governor 438 

Tompkins's unhappy end 438 

CHAPTER XXII, 1820-1821 

BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 

Partisan activities 440 

The question of a Constitutional convention 441 

Abolition of the Council of Appointment favored by Clinton 442 

"Skinner's Council" 443 

Interferences of Federal office-holders 444 

The Forty-fourth Legislature 445 

The "Green Bag Message" 445 

Van Buren elected Senator 446 

Constitutional convention bill passed 448 

Offensive acts of the Council 448 

Removal of Gideon Hawley 450 

The people vote for a convention 451 

CHAPTER XXIII, 1821-1822 

A NEW CONSTITUTION 

Election of Delegates to the convention 453 

Abolition of the Council of Revision 454 

Legislative and franchise reforms 455 

Chancellor Kent opposes universal suffrage 456 

Sweeping changes in the appointing power 457 

The people ratify the new Constitution 458 

The Forty-fifth Legislature 459 

Approach of canal completion 460 

Ulshoeffer's attack on the Governor 461 

Abolition of the April elections 462 

Tompkins unsuccessfully seeks vindication 464 

Regular Democrats nominate Yates for Governor 466 

Reasons for Clinton's elimination 467 

Thurlow Weed's debut 468 

Yates's great victory at the polls 469 

For INDEX see end of Volume II 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

with 

BIOGRAPHIES 

Benson, Egbert 48 

Burr, Aaron 176 

Clinton, Dewitt 416 

Clinton, George Frontispiece 

Cruger, John 32 

Duane, James 80 

Duer, William 96 

Fish, Nicholas 304 

Floyd, William 304 

Fulton, Robert 336 

Gallatin, Albert 208 

Hamilton, Alexander 112 

Jay, John 48 

Jay, William 384 

Kent, James 256 

King, Rufus 160 

Lansing, John, Jr 224 

Lewis, Francis 96 

Lewis, Morgan 240 

Livingston, Edward 224 

Livingston, Robert R 144 

Macomb, Alexander 144 

McDougall, Alexander •. 80 

Montgomery, Richard 64 

Morris, Gouverneur 192 

Nott, Eliphalet 352 

Porter, Peter B 432 

Rutgers, Henry 192 

Sanford, Nathan 44 S 

Schuyler, Phillip 64 

Smith, Melancton 128 

Spencer, Ambrose 368 

Stuyvesant, Peter 32 

Tayler, John 400 

Thompson, Smith 272 

Tompkins, Daniel D 288 

Van Cortlandt, Pierre, Jr 320 

Van Rensselaer, Stephen 432 

Walton, William 112 

Willett, Marinus 320 



FOREWORD 

The purpose of this work is to furnish to the public 
an authentic, thorough and dispassionate account of 
the political and governmental development and ad- 
ministration of the State of New York, including a 
careful and unbiased narration of the positions, for- 
tunes and acts of its political parties; also, as sup- 
plementary to it, the fundamentals of National party 
and political history, — to which the special political 
history of our state, like that of every other state, is 
not only inter-related but subordinate. 

It will be promptly conceded by every writer, 
publicist, educator, student or seeker for information 
who has had occasion to investigate any particular 
phase of political development of our State or Nation 
that it is only by an extended examination of numerous 
works of history and reference that anything like a 
comprehensive view of a specific situation can be ob- 
tained and even then, owing to the prevalent conflict 
of authorities, the result is unsatisfactory. 

Our government is fundamentally and essentially a 
government by political parties, representative of the 
people and effectuating the will of the majority of the 
people as expressed at the polls. Any purported his- 
tory of our Nation or State which fails to correctly 
depict the rise, growth and fall of our National parties 
and the issues which, through their victories or defeats, 
have been definitely settled by popular referendum is 
absurdly inadequate, necessarily misleading and is not 
entitled to recognition. It is lamentably true, how- 



ever, that the writing of our general histories seems 
to have been left mainly to those who, through lack of 
practical experience in public affairs or a false per- 
spective, have given but scant or superficial attention 
to the relations of political parties to public institu- 
tions and affairs. To correct in some measure this 
condition and to provide in a human, readable form a 
comprehensive, accurate and consecutive account of 
the development of the governmental agencies of our 
state and the records of the dominant political parties 
in their relation to state and national affairs is the task 
here undertaken. 

The trite saying that "history repeats itself," when 
translated, means simply that, despite man-made, 
artificial environment and restrictive measures, there 
has been no essential change in the motives actuating 
the human race in social and governmental activities; 
consequently unless we have ready at hand for care- 
ful study and consideration an authentic account of 
the political happenings that have gone before we are 
disqualified at the outset, not only from expressing an 
intelligent opinion of the past but also from inspiring 
confidence in our judgment of the present or future. 

Fully conscious of the importance of the task and of 
the responsibility assumed, I sincerely trust that this 
work, both in its general scheme and in its manner of 
execution, will commend itself to the public and will 
find a permanent niche in standard American historical 
literature. 

R. B. S. 



CHAPTER 1 
COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 

NATURE seems to have designed, as the pro- 
gress of both local and general events has cer- 
tainly confirmed, New York as the Empire 
State — in population, industry, commerce, wealth, and 
social and political influence the foremost member of 
the American Union. Its geographical situation and 
its physical characteristics gave it preeminent advan- 
tages over all the other Colonies. Although exceeded 
in area by two others, its strategic place was indubitably 
supreme. Its territory extended, as did that of no other, 
from the Atlantic littoral to the Great Lakes. Upon 
the former it had the finest harbor in the whole conti- 
nent, and upon the latter it had an extended frontage, 
while between the two it had an unrivalled natural 
highway for travel and trade, half the distance on a 
great arm of the sea navigable for ocean-going craft, 
and half across a level, rich, and well-watered country. 
Nowhere else, from Maine to Georgia, was access from 
the coast to the basin of the Great Lakes and to the 
valleys of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi nearly 
as easy and as expeditious as through New York. 

Climate and topography were comparable with situ- 
ation. Midway between New England and the south, 
it had a moderate climate, and this, with its variety of 
soils, made it able to produce in abundance a greater 
number of the useful fruits of the earth than any of its 

17 



18 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

sister Colonies. Above the others, too, it was well 
wooded and well watered for purposes of both industry 
and commerce. These conditions fitted it to be self- 
sustaining and independent to a greater degree, perhaps, 
than any other; and made it capable of maintaining 
comfortably and prosperously a larger population than 
even those two which had a larger area. 

Such supremacy in numbers it did not, however, 
enjoy at the beginning. During the Revolution it was 
probably one of the smaller Colonies. When the first 
census was taken, in 1790, it stood only fifth, having 
fewer than half as many inhabitants as Virginia, and 
being surpassed also by Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 
and Massachusetts. At the second census, in 1800, it 
had risen to third place and was exceeded in population 
by only Virginia and Pennsylvania. In 1810 it was 
second, with only Virginia exceeding it; and at every 
subsequent census it has stood first by a plurality which 
made rivalry by any other State seem quite hopeless. 

The character of the aboriginal inhabitants must also 
be taken into account, perhaps not so much for its influ- 
ence upon the development of the State as for its indica- 
tion of the importance of its territory in pre-Columbian 
days. In other parts of the country there are more 
noteworthy material monuments of Indian life and 
civilization; but nowhere else did the social and politi- 
cal organization of the natives attain so high a degree, 
or were their religion, laws, and arts of civilization so 
elaborately developed, as among the Six Nations of the 
Long House. That confederacy not only possessed and 
occupied the greater part of the area of the present 



COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 19 

State of New York, but it ruled supreme over all the 
tribes from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and from the 
St. Lawrence to the Tennessee. For a century preced- 
ing its statehood, New York was thus the seat of an 
Indian empire surpassed in importance and culture 
only by those of the Mayas, the Aztecs, and the Incas. 
North of the Rio Grande it was supreme. 

It was, however, in the circumstances and character 
of its settlement and colonization that New York had 
the greatest advantage over its neighbors and received 
most deeply and puissantly the assured impress of 
potential empire. It was the one cosmopolitan Colony. 
Every other one was founded, settled, and developed by 
the British — chiefly by the English — and was under 
unbroken British rule from the beginning down to the 
Revolution. Of every other one the antecedents, tra- 
ditions, sympathies, aspirations were all pure British. 
Every other one was substantially homogeneous in 
composition, for in New Jersey and Pennsylvania the 
considerable non-British elements were not sufficient 
materially to affect the political and social order. But 
New York was composite in race, in language, in 
religion, and in social and political traditions. It had 
been founded and settled by the Dutch, and for one- 
fourth of its ante-Revolutionary history had been a 
Dutch colony, under Dutch government. Then it had 
been acquired and further settled by the English, and 
for the remaining three-fourths of its colonial life it had 
been under British rule. In addition, it had received a 
considerable and very influential admixture of French 
colonists, of the very best type of the French nation of 



20 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

that day. Thus at the time of the Revolution its popu- 
lation was tripartite, and each of the three elements 
inherited and cherished the language, the laws, the 
customs, the traditions, the ideals, and the religious 
faith and worship of its respective mother country. 

The result was a degree of catholicity and liberality 
superior to that of most other Colonies. Massachusetts 
and Connecticut were intolerantly puritan, and Vir- 
ginia was no less intolerantly cavalier. But New York 
was neither. The dominant elements, both ecclesias- 
tical and civil, were the Dutch Reformed, the English 
Establishment, and the Huguenot. But the English 
Establishment in New York was far less bigoted and 
oppressive than in Virginia, and non-conformists and 
dissenters and all others flourished in peace and free- 
dom. 

At the same time, side by side with this notable degree 
of liberality, there prevailed in New York in some 
respects a higher degree of feudalism and arrogance 
than in any other Colony. Far more than any other, it 
was physically owned and was socially and politically 
dominated by great families, which maintained a quasi- 
baronial, almost semi-regal state. Some of these were 
Dutch, some were English or Scotch or Irish, and a few 
were French; while of course some through inter- 
marriage blended all these stocks. The Colonial and 
Revolutionary history of New York is largely a his- 
tory of the alliances and feuds of these families and 
their retainers, and indeed for many of its early years 
the story of the State of New York was marked deeply 
by the same influences. 



COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 21 

The Colony which these circumstances marked and 
set apart as peculiar and unique among its neighbors 
was chartered as New Netherland by the Dutch gov- 
ernment in 1614, and was in 1623 extensively settled by 
that enterprising and masterful people, both its present 
metropolis and its present capital being founded by 
them in that year. For half a century it remained in 
Dutch possession and developed Dutch institutions. 
Nevertheless, the English were already invading it 
from their adjacent Colonial possessions to such an 
extent that when its first Landtag or Legislature was 
formed and assembled, in 1653, it contained ten Dutch 
and nine English members, representing four Dutch 
and four English towns. In 1664 it was taken outright 
by the English and became New York, and with the 
exception of a very brief period it remained under 
British rule until the Revolution of 1776. 

The real political organization of New York may be 
regarded as dating from 1683. At that time it was 
divided into twelve counties. With two of these we 
need not concern ourselves, since they were soon there- 
after ceded to the Colonies to which they logically 
belonged. They were Cornwall, now a part of the 
State of Maine, and Dukes, now the insular portion of 
Massachusetts. The ten counties still contained in New 
York were New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond, 
Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Ulster, and 
Albany. The five first named had boundaries which 
have continued practically unchanged down to recent 
years. The names of the others have remained upon 
the map, but their boundaries have been much changed 



22 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

by the setting off of portions of their areas for the for- 
mation of new counties. Thereafter each county 
regarded itself as a semi-independent political and civic 
unit, and progressively developed its own character- 
istics. Each county differed to some extent, in some 
cases radically, from its neighbors, and thus another 
element of heterogeneity was added to those which have 
already been noted as characterizing the Colony as a 
whole. 

During the ante-Revolutionary period this composite 
character of New York had two important effects. It 
made the Colony less inclined toward independence, or 
even toward revolution without independence, than 
some others, notably Massachusetts and Virginia; but 
it also made it one of the most aggressively and effi- 
ciently inclined toward some form of Colonial union. 
The first step in the latter direction, which was also, 
though then quite unconsciously and unintentionally, 
in the former direction, was taken in 1754. In that 
year, in view of the great war which was then begin- 
ning, and doubtless with a certain subconscious 
prescience of its epochal importance in Colonial affairs, 
seven of the Colonies sent delegates to a convention 
which was to consider the formation of a Colonial con- 
federation, on the basis of articles drafted by Benjamin 
Franklin. The seven Colonies were New York, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and their delegates met 
in convention at Albany, in New York. 

That was the first faint and unrecognized conception 
of the United States, and it occurred appropriately on 



COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 23 

the soil of New York, partly because it was a convenient 
place midway between north and south, and partly 
because it was in a Colony so mixed and varying in 
sentiment and tendencies as to make its secure enlist- 
ment in such a movement as desirable as it might be 
difficult. It was indeed found that while a strong 
inclination toward Colonial confederation undoubtedly 
existed, the political sentiment of New York was much 
less unanimous than in any other Colony; a condition 
which increased in intensity with the passage of time 
and the development of events. The causes of this 
division of sentiment were not obscure or complex. 
The unequalled port facilities of New York and indeed 
of all the Hudson River towns made travel and com- 
munication between them and England easy, direct, and 
intimate; the frequent and numerous presence of British 
civil and military officials resulted in the maintenance 
of something like petty viceregal courts; and the great 
families with their vast hereditary estates created a 
domestic and social life not unlike that of England 
itself. These circumstances naturally and strongly 
tended toward loyalty to the crown. On the other hand 
the large and influential Dutch element, and the small 
but singularly efficient and influential Huguenot ele- 
ment, had no sentimental attachment to the British 
crown, the former indeed still cherishing some hostility 
toward it; and the mercantile element, which was con- 
stantly and rapidly growing in numbers and influence, 
resented the commercial disabilities and later the taxes 



24 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

which the British government arbitrarily imposed. 
These factors increasingly made for the development of 
a spirit of local patriotism. 

The first direct word of opposition, or of remon- 
strance, against British misgovernment was spoken on 
December 1 1, 1762, near the end of that fateful French 
and Indian-Seven Years' War which probably had a 
greater influence upon the affairs of the world than any 
other for several centuries, and in which were sown the 
unmistakable seeds of American independence. On the 
date named an earnest and protracted controversy over 
the tenure of office and the payment of salaries of Judges 
culminated in the adoption by the New York Colonial 
Assembly of a memorial to the king, urging the neces- 
sity of judicial independence and asking for a hearing 
upon the subject. This was followed during the next 
three years with other memorials, protesting against the 
sugar tax and other forms of that "taxation without 
representation" which had been devised to meet the 
expenses of the war. The memorials and addresses of 
Philip Livingston, William Bayard, and Frederick 
Philipse at this time were, indeed, not unworthy of 
rank by the side of those of Otis, Henry, Adams, and 
the other Massachusetts and Virginia statesmen who 
have enjoyed more popular prominence in history 
books, but who were no whit superior to their contem- 
poraries of New York in patriotic spirit or in the power 
to give it expression. Nor were popular demonstra- 
tions of resentment at British oppression lacking. New 
York City, as a commercial center, was a favorite resort 
of British naval vessels for the purpose of impressing 



- COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 25 

merchant seamen into the service. When in June, 1764, 
four sailors were thus seized, the populace rose against 
the frigate whose officers had ordered the detestable 
job, seized the captain's barge, drew it ashore, and 
burned it; and the courts were conveniently unable to 
detect the perpetrators of the deed. 

While therefore there was a larger proportion of 
British sympathizers — loyalists, or tories — in New 
York than in any other Colony, there was also a large 
number of patriots who were second to no others in all 
America in resistance to misgovernment, in clearness 
of vision of the coming contest, and in steadfast resolu- 
tion and devotion to the cause of liberty, even to the 
extent, if necessary, of forcible separation from the 
mother country. Indeed, what we may consider the 
first really significant step toward separation was taken 
by the Colonial Assembly of New York on October 18, 
1764. Ten years before, at Albany, as already related, 
New York had taken a leading part in the movement 
for a Colonial confederation. Now it took the initiative 
in making that confederation an agency of hostility to 
British rule. This the Assembly, in response to indubi- 
table popular demands, did by investing a committee 
with authority to enter into correspondence with similar 
committees appointed by the other Colonial Assemblies, 
or with the Assemblies themselves in default of such 
committees, "on the subject matter of the act commonly 
called the Sugar act; of the act restraining paper bills 
of credit in the Colonies from being legal tender; of the 
several other acts of Parliament lately passed with rela- 
tion to the trade of the northern Colonies; and also on 



26 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the subject of the impending dangers which threatened 
the Colonies of being taxed by laws to be passed in 
Great Britain." This was eight years in advance of 
Samuel Adams's famous motion at a Boston town meet- 
ing for the appointment of a Committee of Correspond- 
ence "to state the rights of the colonists." 

Adams's action in 1772 is commonly credited with 
having led to the summoning of the first Continental 
Congress. The action of New York in 1764 led to the 
summoning of the first real Colonial Congress, though 
it was on the specific invitation of Massachusetts that 
the body met. This Congress assembled in New York 
City in October, 1765, and was participated in by all the 
Colonies but Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. 
Because of the marked division of popular sentiment, 
no election of Delegates to it was held in New York, but 
the Committee of Correspondence served as the Col- 
ony's representatives and as such took a leading part in 
the transactions. Three important instruments were 
adopted, of which two were written by New York men. 
James Otis of Massachusetts wrote the address to Par- 
liament, but Philip Livingston of New York wrote the 
petition to the crown, and John Cruger of New York 
wrote the declaration of rights and grievances 
addressed to the people of both America and Great 
Britain, in which "the right of taxing themselves either 
personally or by representatives of their own choosing, 
the right of trial by jury, and the right of petition" were 
claimed as inalienably belonging to the colonists. 

While this Congress was in session the Stamp act 
went into effect, and the merchants of New York took 



COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 27 

the lead in opposition and even in physical resistance 
to it. A committee was formed to seek the cooperation 
of the other Colonies, and it was publicly advertised 
that the persons and properties of all who distributed or 
used the obnoxious stamped paper would be in grave 
peril. The royal Lieutenant-Governor, Cadwallader 
Colden, and Lord Bute, the British Minister who was 
held chiefly responsible for the policy of the govern- 
ment, were hanged and burned in effigy in The Fields, 
now City Hall Park; Colden's state coach was also 
burned ; the cannon at the Battery were spiked ; and the 
house of the commander of the royal artillery was 
sacked, its contents were burned, and the colors of the 
regiment were seized and carried away by the mob. 

This was no irresponsible mob. It was led by some 
of the best men of New York, and its work was followed 
up with further less violent but no less resolute and 
effective action. The "Sons of Liberty," led by Isaac 
Sears, Marinus Willett, John Lamb, and Alexander 
McDougall, took the lead in a systematic propaganda 
against the Stamp act. John Cruger, then Mayor of 
the city, Robert R. Livingston, John Stevens, and 
Beverly Robinson called upon Colden and demanded 
assurances that the stamps and stamped paper would not 
be used. The Common Council demanded that Colden 
surrender the stamps to it, which he did; and Colden 
wrote to the British ministry that the action of New 
York was being watched by the other Colonies and 
would be followed by them as an example. Neither 
Colden nor Sir Henry Moore, who became Governor in 
that same month, made any attempt to distribute or sell 



28 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the stamps, and the law remained unenforced until its 
repeal in the following March. That repeal was 
greeted in New York with joy as great as the wrath 
which had been manifested at the adoption of the act. 
Statues of George III and William Pitt were erected, 
at Bowling Green and in Wall Street respectively, and 
a great "liberty pole" was set up at the Battery. Bon- 
fires, music, and public feastings further emphasized 
the gratification and exultation of a people who sin- 
cerely wished to remain loyal to their king but who 
valued liberty and the rights of British subjects more 
highly than their allegiance to the crown. 

Joy was, however, short lived. A few months later 
violent antagonism was renewed over the action of the 
British government in quartering troops in New York 
at New York's expense. British soldiers cut down the 
liberty pole and wounded with their bayonets several 
citizens who were trying to put it up again — the first 
blood of American patriots shed by British soldiers in 
the Revolution. Twice the Assembly refused the 
appropriations which the Governor demanded for pay- 
ment of the expenses of the troops, and in retaliation 
Parliament, in June, 1767, forbade the Assembly to 
pass any other act until it had made provision for the 
troops. The Assembly was resolute, and for the remain- 
der of its legal life did nothing. 

But the arbitrary British prohibition invoked its own 
Nemesis. A new Assembly was elected in 1768, in 
which the patriotic party was still stronger than in the 
old one, and in which the significant and formidable 
figures of Philip Schuyler of Albany and George Clin- 



COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 29 

ton of Ulster first appeared and assumed leadership. 
Schuyler drafted (probably) and the Assembly adopted 
a memorial condemning the interference of Parliament 
with the Assembly as unconstitutional and declaring 
that the power and authority of the Assembly could not 
be lawfully suspended or abridged by any power what- 
soever, save only the prerogative of the crown to 
prorogue and to dissolve it. Three days later the Gov- 
ernor took the Assembly at its word and dissolved it as 
a body too dangerous to be tolerated. So the strife con- 
tinued, fluctuating but generally increasing in intensity 
and violence, both between the Americans and the 
British soldiers and functionaries and also between the 
two factions of Americans. The De Lanceys, Philipses, 
and some other great families staunchly supported the 
British government, even in its most arbitrary and 
purblind policies, while the Schuylers, Livingstons, 
Clintons, and others were leaders of the patriotic oppo- 
sition. 

The "Sons of Liberty," the "Mohawks," and other 
organizations increased their activities, not hesitating 
on occasion to measure strength with the soldiery. On 
January 18, 1770, occurred the "battle" of Golden Hill, 
on John Street between William and Cliff streets, and 
the next day a sailor was fatally bayoneted by a British 
soldier, the first life lost in the Revolution. There fol- 
lowed three years later a grave contest over the attempt 
to import taxed tea. In the fall of 1773 the "Sons of 
Liberty" and "Mohawks" kept a continuous watch for 
the expected coming of tea-laden vessels, with the pur- 
pose of driving them away if not of destroying them, 



30 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1774 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

and a new Committee of Correspondence, which was in 
effect a vigilance committee, was organized. A New 
York merchant who had declared in favor of landing 
the tea in spite of the "rebels" was burned in effigy, and 
a proclamation was made by the "Sons of Liberty" that 
any one who should aid in landing the tea, or cart it, or 
buy it, would be regarded as "an enemy of the liberties 
of America." 

Boston has the historic honor of having been the scene 
of the "tea party," when, in December, 1773, her citi- 
zens disguised as Indians threw overboard the obnox- 
ious cargo of taxed tea which had been sent to that port. 
But it was only through a chance freak of the weather 
that New York lost that distinction. The tea ships 
designed for New York should have reached that port 
before the other reached Boston, and had they done so 
their reception would have been probably even more 
strenuously rude than that of their consort at Boston. 
But they were blown out of their course by storms, put 
in at Antigua for safety and repairs, and did not reach 
New York until the following April. The "Nancy," 
first to arrive, was stopped in the Lower Bay and held 
there for a week without unloading a pound of tea. 
The "London," her consort, arrived a day later with a 
cargo of tea brought in by her captain as a private spec- 
ulation. The Committee of Correspondence stopped 
her, declared her cargo confiscated, threw every case 
of the tea into the river, and sent the captain home to 
England on the "Nancy," which sailed at the end of a 
week. 



1774] COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 31 

These were strenuous doings. But they were not 
altogether approved, even by some of the most earnest 
patriots. Conservatism was strong in New York City 
at that early date, and there was a widespread feeling 
that more orderly procedure was needed than that of 
the Vigilance Committee. Accordingly in May of that 
year, a few weeks after the tea ships episode, a new 
Committee of Fifty-One was formed, partly for the 
purpose of restraining the radicalism of the "Sons of 
Liberty" but chiefly for that of directing radical ener- 
gies into more methodical channels. Already, in April, 
Isaac Sears and Alexander McDougall had written, in 
the name of the Vigilance Committee, to the Boston 
leaders, pledging the support of New York in any 
measures which might be adopted. On May 23 the new 
committee was organized, and it entered forthwith upon 
the work of corresponding with the other Colonies. 
This function was entrusted to a sub-committee consist- 
ing of Isaac Low, James Duane, and John Jay. Alex- 
ander McDougall was at first a member, but he resigned 
from it when the others would not agree to his scheme 
of first of all stopping all trade with England, and when 
they repudiated the letter which he and Sears had sent 
to Boston. 

This sub-committee on the evening of May 23 per- 
formed an epochal act. This was the adoption of a 
letter, written by John Jay, addressed to the leaders in 
Boston, urging that there should be called at once "a 
Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in general," at 
which unanimous action should be agreed upon, not 
only concerning the closing of the port of Boston but 



32 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1774 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

also "for the security of our common rights." To this 
body, Jay added, should be left the question of the 
advisability of adopting a non-importation agreement 
by all the Colonies. This letter, rather than Adams's 
motion in 1772, already referred to, was the real initia- 
tive of the first Continental Congress. It was the first 
practical suggestion of united action for the common 
welfare of all. It did not instantly evoke a favorable 
response, but it is noteworthy that its author and his 
colleagues had so much faith in its ultimate success that 
they promptly issued a call for a meeting on July 19, at 
which Delegates to the proposed Congress should be 
chosen. It may be added that the Connecticut Com- 
mittee of Correspondence concurred in the scheme on 
June 4, Rhode Island through its General Assembly on 
June IS, the General Court of Massachusetts on June 
17, and a citizens' meeting at Philadelphia on June 18. 

The "Sons of Liberty" in the Vigilance Committee 
were not willing, however, to relinquish the leadership 
to the Committee of Fifty-One without a struggle. 
Accordingly they issued an unsigned call for a popular 
meeting in The Fields on the evening of July 6. At this 
gathering McDougall presided, and speeches were made 
and resolutions adopted in favor of resenting the closing 
of the port of Boston by stopping all commercial inter- 
course with Great Britain. The meeting is chiefly 
remembered, however, because it was interrupted by a 
young college undergraduate, who forced his way upon 
the platform and made an address uninvited and unin- 




Peter Stuyvesant 



Peter Stuyvesant, Dutch Governor of New Amsterdam; born 
in Holland, 1592; traveled and fought in the West Indies; 
appointed director general of New Amsterdam July 28, 1646 
and took possession May 11, 1647; superceded by Richard 
Nicolls when Charles II gave the province to his brother, 
James, Duke of York, September 8, 1664; died in New York 
City, August, 1682. 




Joh\ Cruger 

John Cruger, colonial mayor of New York City; born in 
New York City July IS, 1710; shipping merchant; alderman 
of dock ward, 1754; mayor, 1739-1743, 1757-1765; member 
general assembly, 1759-1768; speaker last colonial assembly, 
1769-75; retired to Kinderhook during the war but afterward 
returned to New York City where he died, December 27, 1792. 



1774] COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 33 

troduced, which was for eloquence and power decid- 
edly the chief speech of the occasion. That lad was 
Alexander Hamilton. 

The retort of the Committee of Fifty-One came 
promptly and sharp the next morning. It condemned 
the meeting and its resolutions as calculated to "excite 
disunion among our fellow-citizens," which had doubt- 
less been their purpose. It also appointed a new com- 
mittee, including McDougall and Sears, to draft new 
resolutions. McDougall and Sears refused to serve, and 
with nine of their comrades withdrew from the Com- 
mittee of Fifty-One. A new committee was then 
named, with Jay as a member, and it reported resolu- 
tions declaring an earnest desire to remain British sub- 
jects, but condemning the closing of the port of Boston 
as "subversive of every idea of British liberty," and 
leaving the method of dealing therewith to the Conti- 
nental Congress which was to be constituted. These 
resolutions were adopted by the whole committee, and 
it was decided to present at the meeting of July 19 the 
names of Philip Livingston, John Alsop, Isaac Low, 
James Duane, and John Jay as candidates for member- 
ship in the Continental Congress. At the meeting all 
five were elected, in spite of a determined effort by the 
remains of the Vigilance Committee to substitute 
McDougall for Jay. Delegates were also chosen by 
Kings, Suffolk, and Orange counties — Simon Boerum, 
William Floyd, and John Haring, respectively; Queens 
county and Richmond held aloof, and the other com- 
munities up the Hudson, including Albany, requested 
the New York City Delegates to represent them also. 



34 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1774 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The resolutions were, however, rejected by the meeting 
of July 19, and for that reason all the Delegates except 
Duane refused to accept their election; for the addi- 
tional reason, also, that they did not consider the meet- 
ing fairly representative of the citizenship of New 
York, and thought that the Delegates should be chosen 
at a regularly held election. Accordingly an election 
was held, with polling places in each ward, on July 28 ; 
and thereat the four candidates were unanimously 
elected. 

Thus was harmony restored between the two parties 
or factions which had arisen and which for a time had 
threatened by their discordant rivalry seriously to com- 
promise the patriot cause. Livingston and Jay (who 
was married to a daughter of William Livingston) were 
leaders of the aristocracy, of the great families, the 
landed proprietors, and the merchants, while Sears and 
McDougall represented the democracy, the mechanics, 
and petty tradesmen. From this time forward until 
after the Revolution, partisanship was largely sub- 
merged by the rising tide of patriotism. 

In the Continental Congress the New York Delegates 
filled an honorable place. Duane took the lead in favor- 
ing recognition of the Navigation acts, though John 
Adams actually made the motion to that effect. Living- 
ston and Jay were members of the committee on the 
Declaration of Rights, of which Richard Henry Lee 
was chairman, and it was Jay who drafted that mem- 
orable document. He also wrote the no less notable 
Address of Congress to the People of Great Britain, 
which Jefferson, before he knew the authorship, enthu- 



177S] COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 35 

siastically declared to be "a production of the finest pen 
in America," as indeed it was. It is to be recalled that 
the Congress took action in favor of the non-importation 
which McDougall and the Sons of Liberty had been 
advocating, and in consequence the Delegates on their 
return to New York were publicly commended in the 
strongest manner by their former critics and opponents 
of the democratic side. Jay himself was unanimously 
elected a member of a new Committee of Sixty, which 
superseded the Committee of Fifty-One and which was 
specially charged with the work of enforcing the non- 
importation rule. 

Meantime the New York Colonial Assembly was the 
scene of almost incessant strife between the patriots and 
the loyalists, or tories, and was in membership almost 
equally divided between them, though the tories usually 
had a majority. It refused to consider the proceedings 
of the Congress, or to thank the New York Delegates 
for their services, or to publish the correspondence 
between New York and Connecticut and with Edmund 
Burke, or to thank the merchants for supporting the 
non-importation agreement. It also refused to consider 
the question of electing Delegates to the second session 
of Congress, in May, 1775; and then it performed its 
last act of grace by committing suicide. On April 3, 
1775, it adjourned to May 3, and it never met again. 

Upon the refusal of the moribund Assembly to pro- 
vide for the election of Delegates to the Congress, the 
Committee of Sixty, or of Inspection, as it was officially 
called, assumed that authority, and it accordingly issued 
a call to the various counties to elect another committee, 



36 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1775 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

consisting of one hundred members representing all 
parts of the Colony. This was known as the Committee 
of Observation, but was really a Committee of Public 
Safety. It was to elect Delegates to the Continental 
Congress, and was also to organize a Provincial Con- 
gress to take the place of the old Assembly. Queens 
county, being under tory control, refused to participate 
in this movement, but the nine other counties now 
within the limits of the State responded. The com- 
mittee met in New York on April 28 and reappointed 
the former Delegates to Congress, adding to their num- 
ber five more congenial spirits: Philip Schuyler, 
Robert R. Livingston, Lewis Morris, Francis Lewis, 
and George Clinton. 

The Provincial Congress, which met in New York on 
May 22, 1775, was a prudent and conservative body of 
eighty-one members. Gouverneur Morris, then only 
twenty-three years of age, was a delegate from West- 
chester county, and as such not only came for the first 
time into public prominence, but became one of the 
leaders of the body. It adopted resolutions favoring 
conciliation and continued union with Great Britain, 
disapproving the invasion of Canada, and looking to 
the Continental Congress for leadership and direction 
on all important matters. As yet, it must be remem- 
bered, the fateful word "independence" had not been 
spoken at Philadelphia. On the contrary, nearly all 
the continental leaders were outspoken in their declara- 
tions of loyalty to the crown. One other incident of the 
first session of the New York Provincial Congress must 
be recalled. On the initiative of Morris it suggested the 



1775-6] COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 37 

issue of paper currency by the various Colonies, each 
Colony being responsible for the redemption in gold 
of all that it issued, but the entire issue to be guaranteed 
by the Continental Congress. That was the origin of 
the Continental currency. 

After a session of some weeks, the Provincial Con- 
gress adjourned, and a new body of like character was 
called to meet in the fall. On the appointed day in 
October no quorum was present, and it was not until 
December 6 that organization could be effected. Even 
then the tory counties of Queens and Richmond were 
unrepresented. This manifestation of hostility enraged 
the patriots in the Provincial Congress, and it was pro- 
posed to take harsh measures, comprising imprison- 
ment or exile, against the tory leaders, beginning with 
Governor Tryon himself. To avoid such fate Tryon 
took refuge on a British warship. 

That winter it was strongly recommended by the 
Continental Congress at Philadelphia that the various 
Colonies should take strenuous steps for the suppression 
of toryism and all disaffection, a recommendation 
perhaps chiefly suggested by the conduct of the tories 
of Queens, Richmond, and other counties of New York. 
Again, on May 15, 1776, it urged the Colonies to adopt 
new and permanent State governments, doubtless in this 
also having New York especially in mind. Meantime 
New York had elected a new Provincial Congress and 
had elected John Jay a member of it, although he was 
at the same time a member of the Continental Congress. 
This New York body met at the New York City Hall 



38 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1776 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

on May 14, and immediately voted Jay leave of absence 
from his duties at Philadelphia and summoned him to 
New York to advise and assist in its deliberations. It 
was undoubtedly well for New York that Jay was sum- 
moned, although he was thus prevented from taking 
part in the debate upon independence and from being 
one of the signers of the Declaration. 

Jay reached New York on May 25, and at once 
became by common consent the leader of the Provincial 
Congress, particularly in all matters relating to the 
Continental Congress and its doings. It was on his 
initiative that as late as June 11 a resolution was 
adopted declaring it to be the sense of the Provincial 
Congress that the people had not authorized it or their 
Delegates at Philadelphia to declare the Colony to be 
independent of the British crown. Jay was confirmed 
in this by his colleague, Duane, who wrote him from 
Philadelphia that Patrick Henry and the other Vir- 
ginians were opposed to independence and that it was 
manifestly desirable to await a more definite popular 
mandate before venturing upon so radical a course. 
Nevertheless, on June 7 the Continental Congress had 
begun to consider the question of a declaration of inde- 
pendence, a fact of which Jay was probably not yet 
informed on June 1 1. 

Meantime the menace of British occupation of New 
York increased and the patriots took all possible 
measures for defense, and also for escape in case defense 
proved impossible. The Colonial records were hastily 



1776] COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 39 

sent up the river to Kingston, with the purpose of mak- 
ing that place, comparatively secure from the British 
fleet, at least the temporary capital of the Colony, and 
the Provincial Congress — a new one, elected on June 
19 and not yet convened — prepared to follow it thither. 

That body did not, however, immediately proceed to 
Kingston. It paused for a time at White Plains, in 
Westchester county, and there organized and per- 
formed the most important act of its entire career. It 
was on July 9 that it met in the White Plains court 
house. Five days before, the Continental Congress had 
adopted the Declaration of Independence. The news 
of that epochal achievement had been hurried across 
country by express riders, and the text of the declaration 
had been read at New York and at Albany. It had been 
received with manifestations of popular approval and 
exultation so general and so emphatic as to warrant the 
belief that it would be ratified by the vast majority of 
the people of the Colony. That view was taken of it 
when, on the afternoon of July 9, it was laid before the 
Provincial Congress at White Plains. 

Every eye was naturally turned toward John Jay, to 
see his attitude toward the momentous instrument, and 
then by unanimous vote the Declaration was referred 
to him, or to a committee of which he was the chairman, 
for consideration. An hour later it was reported back 
with a proposed resolution drafted by Jay, unreservedly 
approving the Declaration though deploring the neces- 
sity for it and authorizing the New York Delegates at 
Philadelphia to sign it. Thus was the Colony irre- 



40 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1776 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

vocably committed to the common cause of union and 
independence. The next day, July 10, 1776, the Pro- 
vincial Congress changed its own official title to that of 
"Convention of the Representatives of the STATE OF 
NEW YORK." The Empire State was born. 



CHAPTER II 
ORGANIZING THE STATE 

THE State of New York, we have said, was born 
at White Plains on July 10, 1776. That was not, 
however, to be the birth date of record, nor was 
the birthplace to be the permanent seat of government. 
On that same day the Convention of the Representatives 
of the State of New York adopted a resolution declaring 
that the sovereign and independent State of New York 
had begun its existence on April 20, 1775, that being 
the date on which the first independent Provincial Con- 
vention, summoned by the Committee of Sixty without 
regard to the British Governor and composed of repre- 
sentatives of nine counties, had met in New York City 
and elected Delegates to the Continental Congress. 

This adoption of a date was entirely logical, despite 
its somewhat ex post facto appearance. So, too, with 
the logic of events, was the action of the Convention in 
choosing its place of meeting. At the very moment of 
this epochal assembly at White Plains, British ships of 
war were lying in the Hudson River at Tarrytown, only 
a few miles away, and raiding parties landed from them 
were threatening White Plains with capture. The city 
of New York, however, was still in patriot hands and 
was still the American headquarters. Washington 
himself, with his ablest aids, had come thither from 
Boston in mid-April and had gathered there such an 
army as he could to resist the blow which the British 

41 



42 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1776 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

were obviously preparing to deliver at that strategic 
point. For Admiral Howe and his brother, General 
Howe, with fleet and army, were in the Lower Bay; 
Clinton was coming up to join them from his ineffectual 
attack upon the palmetto fortifications of Charleston, 
Cornwallis accompanying him; and Carleton was pre- 
paring for a descent from the north. 

In these circumstances, both prudence and courage 
prevailed. The archives of the State were sent up the 
Hudson to Kingston, and preparations were made to 
defend the river against the penetration of any British 
expedition to that place; but the Convention itself 
resolved to remain near Washington in his desperate 
endeavor to hold his ground against the British onset. 
It therefore continued to sit in the White Plains court 
house until July 27, when it adjourned to reassemble 
two days later on Manhattan Island. It did not, it is 
true, go down to New York City proper, but halted at 
Harlem, and there for just a month held its sessions in 
a church. 

The battle of Long Island was fought on August 27, 
and the result made it obviously prudent for the Con- 
vention to retire from what was to be the next firing 
line. Accordingly on August 29 it adjourned, to meet 
at Fishkill on September 5. It there first assembled in 
the Protestant Episcopal church, but found that build- 
ing unfit for occupancy, being "very foul with the dung 
of doves and fowls, without any benches, seats, or other 
conveniences." So it adopted the Dutch crmrch as its 
meeting place. On September 7 it took a recess of a 
week, but was again in session from September 14 to 



1776] ORGANIZING THE STATE 43 

October 5, on October 15, on December 5 and 6, and on 
February 1 1, 1777. 

On this last date it resolved to follow the archives to 
Kingston and to make that place the seat of government. 
Accordingly it adjourned at Fishkill, and reassembled 
at Kingston on March 6, held a most important session 
for more than two months, and finally adjourned sine 
die on May 13, to be succeeded by the first constitu- 
tional Legislature of the State of New York. During 
all this period, amid the vicissitudes of the Convention, 
and especially during its various recesses, a Committee 
of Safety, with plenary powers, was maintained. It 
had been constituted by the first Provincial Congress 
on July 8, 1775, and it continued in existence until the 
final session of the Convention at Kingston in March, 
1777. Its meetings were at New York City until 
August 20," 1776; at Harlem on August 27 and 28; at 
Kingsbridge on August 30; at Philipse's Manor, near 
Tarrytown, on August 31; at Fishkill until February 
15, 1777; and at Kingston until March 5, when it sur- 
rendered its stewardship to the Convention. 

It was in such difficult and hazardous circumstances 
as these that the first Constitution of the State of New 
York was framed. The Convention itself wisely did not 
undertake the task. At that memorable session of July 
10, 1776, in the little old White Plains court house, it 
provided a tentative system of jurisprudence by for- 
mally declaring that until further notice the common 
law and statutes of England, just as they had been in 
force in the Colony on April 19, 1775 — the day before 
the date assigned as the beginning of the new order of 



44 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1776 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

affairs — should be in full force and effect in the State 
of New York. Nothing more was done until August 
1. At that time, in session in the church at Harlem, the 
Convention appointed a special committee to prepare a 
draft of a permanent Constitution for the new State. 

This committee was appointed on the motion of 
Gouverneur Morris, seconded by William Duer. Con- 
trary to common practice, however, the maker of the 
motion was not designated as chairman of the com- 
mittee, though he was a member of it. For the chair- 
manship John Jay was selected, doubtless the best 
choice that could possibly have been made. The other 
members, who among them represented the principal 
shades of political thought and also the chief political 
influences, were Gouverneur Morris, William Duer, 
Robert R. Livingston, Abraham Yates, Robert Yates, 
John Morin Scott, Colonel John Broome, John Sloss 
Hobart, Colonel Charles DeWitt, Samuel Townsend, 
William Smith, and Henry Wisner. The most radical 
tendencies in New York politics and policies were 
represented with masterful ability by John Morin 
Scott, while Morris, Livingston, and the Yateses were 
the pillars of conservatism. 

John Jay, however, was the real Constitution maker. 
He was not merely the chairman of the committee, he 
was the committee. He was at that time thirty-one 
years of age, already recognized as one of the ablest 
lawyers in New York, the author of that address of the 
Continental Congress to the people of Great Britain 
which Thomas Jefferson, before he knew who had 
written it, declared to be "a production of the finest pen 



1776] ORGANIZING THE STATE 45 

in America." He came of a French family belonging 
to the commonalty rather than to the aristocracy, but 
allied through marriages with several of the most aris- 
tocratic and influential families of New York. He was 
thus neither conservative nor radical, but combined the 
desirable characteristics of both, together with an 
intellectual power, a purity of character, and a chivalric 
fervor of devotion which placed him in the very fore- 
most rank of the founders not merely of the State of 
New York but no less of the United States of America. 
It was on August 1 that the committee was appointed. 
The Convention ordered it to report the draft of Con- 
stitution in a fortnight, which was absurdly impossible. 
Jay was not even present in the Convention at that time, 
but was up in the Highlands of the Hudson assisting 
George Clinton to construct defenses to prevent the 
British from going up the river, seizing Kingston, and 
cutting the United States into two parts. There was no 
time for Constitution-making when a storm was about 
to break which might leave no State for which a Con- 
stitution would be needed. Moreover, a few weeks 
later Jay, Duer, and five others were appointed a com- 
mittee "for inquiring into, detecting, and defeating 
conspiracies against the liberties of America." There 
was much need of such a committee, and it had much 
work to do. More than any other of the States, New 
York contained many British loyalists and many who 
were actively conspiring, intriguing, and otherwise 
working for British success. Jay and his colleagues 
were invested with plenary power to take summary 
action against all such, and with those duties they were 



46 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

occupied much of the time until the end of February, 
1777, when the committee was replaced by a commis- 
sion. 

As promptly as possible upon his release from these 
uncongenial duties, in the performance of which his 
transcendent abilities were not employed to the most 
profitable advantage, Jay addressed himself to the work 
of drafting the Constitution. He had among his col- 
leagues on the committee men of high ability, who 
might have rendered effective cooperation, but he pre- 
ferred to do the major part of the work alone. For that 
purpose he withdrew from the Convention, and indeed 
from all contact or communication with his colleagues, 
and in some sequestered retreat in the country devoted 
his undivided and undisturbed attention to the task. 

Concerning his execution of that task some erroneous 
notions have prevailed. It has been said that he under- 
took the work "in an almost unexplored field." That is 
only in part true. If there were no other American 
State Constitutions before him for him to study, to 
imitate, or to improve upon, there were the British and 
Colonial systems, and perhaps also some other Euro- 
pean systems, especially that of the Netherlands, from 
which it is unquestionable that he derived many of his 
ideas. It has also been said — by John Adams, on the 
authority of James Duane — that he used as his model 
and foundation a letter which Adams had written to 
George Wythe, prescribing a scheme of State consti- 
tutional government. It is probable that Jay did see 
that letter, but it is quite certain that it contained only a 
few rudimentary suggestions of the most obvious kind. 



1777] 



ORGANIZING THE STATE 47 



The fact doubtless is that Jay used as the basis of his 
draft the system of government which had prevailed 
in New York while it was a Province or a Colony of the 
British crown, deriving also some hints and suggestions 
from English and Dutch sources, and modifying and 
adapting their principles according to the lessons of 
experience and to what he conceived to be the needs of 
the new State. "We have," he wrote, "a government 
to form, and God knows what it will resemble. Our 
politicians, like some guests at a feast, are perplexed and 
undetermined which dish to prefer." He was himself 
much more conservative than he conceived the majority 
of the Convention to be. Indeed, the Convention 
seemed to him to be ultra-democratic. For this reason 
he did not deem it prudent to put into the draft of the 
Constitution some provisions which seemed to him 
desirable; but he held them in reserve, to be offered as 
amendments in the Convention if the temper of that 
body should indicate a possibility of their acceptance 
of them. 

It was on February 27, 1777, that Jay was relieved of 
his labors as a tory-catcher by the dissolution of the 
committee, and he at once began work on the Consti- 
tution. It was almost exactly a month later that Duer 
reported the draft of that instrument from the com- 
mittee to the Convention. The draft was entirely in 
Jay's handwriting. It was forthwith taken up by the 
Convention section by section, and was carefully con- 
sidered and debated at great length. Only a few 
changes were made in it, and of these nearly all were 
proposed by Jay himself. It was an interesting circum- 



48 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

stance that the two members of the Convention who 
most strongly disagreed on the most strongly debated 
points were its two ablest and most distinguished mem- 
bers and two close friends and neighbors, John Jay and 
Gouverneur Morris. 

The Constitution provided for a government con- 
sisting of three coordinate branches, namely, the Legis- 
lative, the Executive, and the Judicial. This system 
had been suggested by Adams to Wythe in the letter 
already referred to, but it would be an untenable propo- 
sition that it there had its origin and that it was from 
that source that Jay derived it: the principle had long 
been familiar to the Anglo-Saxon race. It was provided 
that the legislative branch should consist of two cham- 
bers, a plan obviously modeled after the English Par- 
liament, and perhaps also after the former Provincial 
Legislature; for while the latter had consisted of a 
single house, there was a Council exercising the func- 
tions of an upper house. The provisions that each house 
should be the judge of the qualifications of its own 
members, and that the lower house should choose its 
own Speaker, were also familiar principles of Colonial 
and British legislative organization. The composition 
of the two houses likewise followed established lines. 
The Senate was to consist of twenty-four members, 
chosen from four great districts into which the State 
should be divided: three from the Eastern, nine from 
the Southern, six from the Middle, and six from the 
Western. They were to serve for four years, and one- 
fourth were to be elected every year. The Assembly 




John Jay 

John Jav, 2d governor 1795-1801 and chief justice of the 
United States; born in New York City, December 12, 1745; 
delegate to continental congress, 1774; member 2d constitu- 
tional congress, 1775; delegate to New York provincial con- 
gress, 1776; drafted first state constitution; United States 
minister to Great Britain, 1794; in Paris with Benjamin 
Franklin, 1782-84; chief justice United States, 1789, 1800; 
elected governor, 1795; reelected 1798; retired 1801; died May 
17, 1829 in Bedford, Westchester county, N. Y. 




Egbert Benson 

Egbert Benson, jurist; born in New York City, June 21, 
1746; lawyer; member of revolutionary committee of safety; 
in 1777 member of council of safety, and appointed first attorney 
general of the state; member of assembly, 1777-1781; con- 
tinental congress, 1781, 1784, 1787, 1788; congress, 1789-1793; 
judge of supreme court, 1794-1801; judge of United States 
circuit court, 1801; again elected to congress and served from 
March 4, 1813, until August 2, 1813, when he resigned; first 
president of New York Historical Society; died at Jamaica, 
L. I., August 24, 1833. 



1777] ORGANIZING THE STATE 49 

was to contain seventy members, apportioned among 
the counties according to population, and elected for 
one year each. 

The legislative franchise was restricted. True, the 
Constitution declared in its preamble that all power 
whatever in the State had reverted to the people thereof, 
and it might therefore have been supposed that there 
should be universal suffrage. But Jay held that the 
State should be governed by those who owned it; to-wit, 
those who owned the real estate. Therefore he pre- 
scribed in the Constitution that the right to vote for 
members of the Assembly should be exercised only by 
male citizens twenty-one years of age, paying taxes, and 
possessed of freeholds worth twenty pounds or holding 
tenancies worth forty shillings a year. In order to vote 
for Senators, and also for Governor, a man must have a 
freehold worth a hundred pounds above all indebted- 
ness. We need not be surprised at the acceptance by the 
"ultra-democratic" Convention of these restrictions, 
which in our day would be condemned as intolerably 
aristocratic, when we remember that at that time New 
York had fully 40,000 citizens entitled to vote under 
these conditions, a much larger proportion than that in 
England at that time or at any time down to the Reform 
act. It does not appear that there was any considerable 
demand in New York for a more extended franchise, 
nor was the principle of indiscriminate and universal 
democracy anywhere seriously advocated. 

The executive authority was to be wielded by a Gov- 
ernor, and in order that the principle of popular author- 
ity might be maintained it was provided that he should 



50 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

be elected by direct vote of the citizens who were qual- 
ified to vote for State Senators. A Lieutenant-Governor 
was to be similarly and simultaneously elected, who was 
to be the presiding officer of the Senate and was to 
succeed the Governor in case of his death or disability- 
It was over the Governorship, its powers and limita- 
tions, that Jay was most troubled with uncertainties and 
fears, and it was in his — and the convention's — dealings 
with that office that the chief errors were committed. 
Morris, with clearer vision and more courage than Jay, 
was for making the Governor a real Chief Executive, 
with a veto power over legislation and with the power to 
appoint subordinate officers. But Jay seems to have 
been obsessed by memories of the abuses committed by 
autocratic royal Colonial Governors and by a fear that 
a Governor though chosen by the people would follow 
their example. 

This apprehension was intensified by the circum- 
stance that it was intended to have a large and important 
array of appointed officers. These were to include 
Mayors of cities, SherifTs of counties, District Attor- 
neys, and Coroners, as well as many State functionaries. 
Indeed, practically all officers were to be appointed, 
excepting of course the Legislature, the Governor and 
Lieutenant-Governor, the State Treasurer, and town 
officers. Obviously, the power which had the appoint- 
ment of all these would exercise enormous influence. 
There were divided counsels in the committee and in 
the Convention. Some were for giving the Governor 
the absolute appointing power. Others more cautiously 
advocated a requirement that his appointments 



1777] ORGANIZING THE STATE 51 

should be passed upon, for confirmation or rejection, 
by the Legislature or by the Senate. Jay, however, 
devised and readily led the Convention to adopt a dif- 
ferent plan from either of these; though in fact it was 
not made to work as he intended it. A Council of 
Appointment was to be constituted, consisting of four 
Senators, one from each of the districts, elected by the 
Assembly, with the Governor ex-officio its presiding 
officer. The Governor was, however, to have no vote, 
save the deciding vote in case of a tie. To this Council 
was to be given full power of appointment. It was Jay's 
intention that the Governor should nominate all the 
officers, and the Senatorial members of the Council 
should act upon them for confirmation or rejection. 
But in fact the nominations were made by the Council, 
which thus became at once a cumbrous and unsatisfac- 
tory arm of the government, and a peculiarly odious 
political machine. Bad as the system was, it was toler- 
ated by the State for more than forty years. 

A similar controversy arose and a similar blunder 
was made over the matter of the veto power. Despite 
the limited suffrage for members of the Legislature, 
there was a haunting fear of bad laws, and at the same 
time there was a disinclination to entrust the Governor 
with the veto power. Morris did, indeed, urge that the 
Governor should have such power, but again Jay dis- 
agreed with him, and, perhaps following the example 
of the Privy Council in Great Britain, proposed a 
Council of Revision, which the Convention adopted. 
This was a Council composed of the Governor, the 
Chancellor, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, and 



52 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

to it were to be submitted all bills passed by the Legis- 
lature, before they became laws. If the Council failed 
to take any action upon a bill within ten days, it became 
law; while if the Council disapproved a bill, it might 
still become law through repassage by a two-thirds 
vote of each house. This Council was far less objection- 
able than the other. In fact, it served the State on the 
whole quite satisfactorily. But it too was abolished 
after more than forty years. 

With these limitations the Governor, who was 
required to be a freeholder, was to hold office for three 
years and to exercise powers similar to those of the 
Colonial Governors who had preceded him. He was 
to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy. He 
was to have authority to call the Legislature together in 
special session, and to prorogue it for not more than 
sixty days in a year; and he was to deliver a message to 
it at the beginning of each session. He was to have the 
power to grant reprieves and pardons to convicted per- 
sons, save murderers and traitors, in whose cases he 
could merely suspend execution of the sentence until the 
Legislature had opportunity to act. 

The third branch of State government, the judiciary, 
was of all most strangely treated in the Constitution. 
No general system of courts was provided. Indeed, the 
only court actually prescribed was that of Errors and 
Impeachment, which was to consist of the Lieutenant- 
Governor, the Senate, and the Justices of the Supreme 
Court, forming a tribunal modeled in part after the 
British House of Lords and partly, probably much 
more, after the former Colonial Council. All other 



1777] ORGANIZING THE STATE 53 

courts, of original jurisdiction, were simply recognized 
as being already in existence. The Supreme Court 
itself had only incidental mention, in a clause prescrib- 
ing the tenure of office of its Justices. Trial by jury was 
to be maintained in all cases in which it had been guar- 
anteed in the Colony, and land grants, charters, popular 
rights, legal customs, and practically the whole code of 
civil laws were similarly carried over from the Colony 
to the State, at least so far as they were compatible with 
independence of the crown. 

It was on March 12, 1777, that William Duer 
reported Jay's holograph of the Constitution to the 
Convention, and immediately debate upon it began in 
committee of the whole. The first section was adopted 
in a few hours, but others were discussed at great length. 
A passage providing for voting by ballot at all elections 
was denounced and was ultimately rejected on motion 
of Gouverneur Morris; though Jay secured the adop- 
tion of an amendment providing for the use of ballots 
as soon as might be practicable after the war. It was 
recognized that this would be merely experimental, 
and a clause was added empowering the Legislature at 
any time after giving the ballot a fair trial to order the 
resumption of oral and public voting. As a matter of 
fact, however, a secret ballot law was enacted the very 
next year and was nine years later made compulsory in 
all elections of all State officers; and it was never 
repealed. 

The greatest debate of all, probably, was over the 
question of religious liberty and equality. This at first 
may seem strange, seeing that New York had been one 



54 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

of the most tolerant of all the Colonies and was one of 
the few which had not practiced persecution. Tolera- 
tion had been a fundamental principle of the Dutch 
founders of New Netherland, and it had been pre- 
served by their successors with jealous care. Jay him- 
self was strongly attached to it, and was glad to write 
in his draft a clause guaranteeing "the free toleration of 
religious profession and worship without diminution 
or preference." But Jay's ancestral traditions of 
La Rochelle and the Huguenots moved him also to be 
most wary lest alien political influence should creep in 
under the guise of faith. He strove to secure the adop- 
tion of an amendment not, indeed, to abridge or inter- 
fere with freedom of faith and worship, but to withhold 
citizenship from and deny naturalization to all who 
would not specifically abjure the authority of any for- 
eign ecclesiastic to absolve citizens from their allegi- 
ance. In this he did not wholly succeed, but he did 
secure provisions that liberty of conscience should not 
be so construed as to justify acts of licentiousness or 
practices inconsistent with the safety of the State; and 
that before being naturalized aliens should abjure all 
foreign allegiance "in matters ecclesiastical as well as 
civil." It was not that he opposed religious liberty, 
but that he wished to protect the State against ecclesias- 
tical intrigue. 

One other important amendment was urged by Jay 
and Morris, but unhappily failed. This was for the 
abolition and prohibition of human slavery, and to 
it the two great statesmen were most earnestly devoted. 
Its adoption would have been of the greatest possible 



1777] ORGANIZING THE STATE 55 

importance to the whole nation, and might well have 
caused .the universal abolition of slavery at an early 
date. Had Jay been able to remain in the Convention 
to the end, he might have secured its acceptance. But 
at the critical moment he was called away by the death 
of his mother, which occurred on April 17, and in his 
absence Morris was unable to sway the Convention in 
favor of freedom; and the amendment, after having 
once been approved, was finally omitted. 

By this time the Convention was growing weary of 
debate upon the Constitution. Jay's absence dispirited 
his friends, who lacked his commanding leadership. It 
also prompted his opponents to hasten matters before 
he should return. Accordingly, on Sunday, April 20, 
at the very moment when the absent leader was attend- 
ing the funeral of his mother, at Fishkill, the Constitu- 
tion was pushed to a final vote and was all but unani- 
mously adopted. Two days later it was published and 
promulgated by being read aloud from an improvised 
platform, consisting of an up-ended cask, in front of 
the Kingston court house. It was never submitted to 
the people for their ratification, the Convention assum- 
ing that in electing members of the Convention for the 
purpose of preparing a Constitution, the people prac- 
tically ratified in advance whatever instrument that 
body might adopt. It may be added that in this respect 
the example of New York was followed by nearly all 
the other States, Massachusetts alone submitting its 
Constitution to a popular vote. 

On the whole, we must esteem the first Constitution 
of New York to have been, despite some errors, an 



56 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

exceptionally wise and worthy instrument. It was 
pretty generally thus regarded in the other States as its 
contents became known. Jay himself wrote that it was 
approved "even in New England," where few New 
York productions had been received with favor. 



CHAPTER III 
THE FIRST GOVERNOR 

POLITICAL parties in the present sense of the 
term had not at the time of which we are writing 
yet come into organized existence. There was of 
course a strong division of the people between Ameri- 
can patriots and British loyalists. The former, who 
were all with whom we need now concern ourselves, 
were vaguely subdivided more on social than political 
lines. There were aristocrats, or conservatives, and it 
was chiefly on these lines, in addition to those of per- 
sonal and family influence, that the electorate was 
divided in the contest for the first Governor of the State 
of New York. 

There were four candidates. One of them, doubtless 
the fittest of all, was John Jay. He was a candidate 
against his will, never acknowledging his candidacy 
but trying sincerely to rule himself out by throwing 
all his influence in behalf of another. Had he sought 
election he would probably have won. That he did not 
was, however, a fortunate circumstance, since he was 
thus left free to devote his invaluable services to the 
Nation instead of merely to a State. 

Another was Philip Schuyler, a curious compound 
of aristocrat and democrat. In the Provincial Assembly 
of 1768 he had been the foremost champion of the 
people. When in 1775 that body showed itself defiant 
of the popular will, and refused to cooperate with the 

57 



58 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Continental Congress, he took the lead in organizing 
the Provincial Congress to replace it. He was a man of 
military talent — it was through his strategy and 
Arnold's impetuous valor that Burgoyne was defeated 
and captured at Saratoga, though the weakling Gates 
claimed the credit of the victory, — and of still greater 
civic gifts. His intellect was masterful, his energy was 
untiring, his integrity was spotless, his devotion to the 
public welfare was unsurpassed. Yet he was character- 
ized by a sort of semi-aristocratic, semi-military 
austerity, not to say arrogance, which held him aloof 
from the common people to whose interest he was in 
fact devoted, and denied him their affection while he 
fully commanded their respect and gratitude. He was 
for them but not of them. 

A third candidate was John Morin Scott, another 
curious compound of aristocrat and democrat. He was 
a man of aristocratic Scottish ancestry, of great wealth, 
and of luxurious domestic life. His home was one of 
the most richly furnished in all the metropolitan region. 
By profession he was a lawyer, and from that calling he 
derived a large income. Yet he was essentially a radical 
agitator of the extremest type, and was inclined to make 
his appeal to the democracy against the aristocracy. He 
had served in the Continental Congress in 1775 and in 
the New York Provincial Congress of 1776, and was a 
brigadier-general in the battle of Long Island. He had 
been a member of Jay's committee which drafted the 
State Constitution. 

George Clinton was the fourth candidate. He was a 
thorough democrat in spirit, though of aristocratic 



1777] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 59 

antecedents and of autocratic disposition. He came of 
a family which had been exiled by Cromwell for its 
adherence to the Stuart cause, but had afterward been 
permitted to live in seclusion in the north of Ireland. 
Thence it migrated to the Hudson Valley, where, at 
Little Britain, Ulster county, George Clinton was born 
on July 26, 1739. He was almost as precocious as was 
his greater opponent, Hamilton. As a boy of fifteen he 
held command on an American privateer; at sixteen he 
was a lieutenant at the conquest of Fort Frontenac; at 
twenty-six he was Schuyler's chief rival for the leader- 
ship of the Provincial Congress. In 1776 he was a 
member of the Continental Congress and voted for the 
Declaration of Independence, but was deprived of the 
privilege of signing that document through being called 
away for military duty before the engrossed copy was 
ready for signature, serving as a brigadier-general. He 
had to the full the characteristic temperament of an 
Irishman: generous and sympathetic, yet pugnacious 
and domineering; a loyal friend and a bitter foe; a 
brave soldier and a consummate politician. 

Such were the candidates for the first Governorship. 
There was little preliminary campaign for the election. 
People were too busy with the war for speech-making 
or parading. Scott made some effort, personal and 
epistolary, in his own behalf. Jay wrote a widely cir- 
culated letter urging the election of Schuyler as Gov- 
ernor and Clinton as Lieutenant-Governor. Clinton 
put himself forward and was pushed by his friends for 
the Governorship, and was thus a candidate for both 
offices. 



60 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The election was held in June, 1777. Jay's letter had 
the effect of securing the aristocratic and conservative 
vote almost solidly for Schuyler for Governor and 
Clinton for Lieutenant-Governor. The democratic and 
radical vote was chiefly divided between Clinton and 
Scott in the ratio of nearly two to one in favor of the 
former. A large vote was cast for Jay in spite of his 
unwillingness to receive it, and some ballots were cast 
for Philip Livingston and for Robert R. Livingston. 
Many days elapsed before the result was known, and 
then it was found that George Clinton had been elected 
to both offices; to the Governorship through the heavy 
vote of the southern counties in his favor and also, prob- 
ably, through the diversion of some conservative votes 
from Schuyler to Jay, and to the Lieutenant-Governor- 
ship through the absence of any formidable competing 
candidate. He of course elected to accept the Gover- 
norship, and the Lieutenant-Governorship consequently 
remained vacant until the Legislature met and on 
September 1 chose Pierre Van Cortlandt for that office. 

This result was not well received by Schuyler. The 
early reports of the polling had indicated his election, 
and indeed Jay had written him congratulating him 
upon his apparent success. When complete returns 
reversed this showing he could not conceal his disap- 
pointment and even his resentment. He attributed 
Clinton's victory to his exercise of the arts of a politi- 
cian, and declared that his antecedents did not entitle 
him to such distinction; an opinion in which we can 
scarcely agree with him, seeing what Clinton's activities 
had been. Nevertheless, Schuyler was too large a man 



1777] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 61 

to let personal pique affect his public policy. He 
ungrudgingly recognized Clinton's integrity and 
patriotism, his ability and courage, and invoked for him 
and his administration the undivided and cordial sup- 
port of the State. Then he turned his attention to 
meeting the British invasion at the north, organizing 
against Burgoyne the campaign of which Gates was to 
claim the credit. 

The result of the election was finally announced on 
July 9, and on July 30 came the formal inauguration of 
the Governor. The place was at the front of the court 
house at Kingston, which served as the first Capitol of 
the State. The stage was an up-turned cask, the same 
from which in the preceding April the Constitution of 
the State had been proclaimed. Standing upon that 
insecure and humble pedestal, clad in the uniform of a 
brigadier-general of militia, and holding his drawn 
sword in his upraised hand, George Clinton took oath 
of office as the first Governor of the State of New York. 
That same day the Council of Safety proclaimed him to 
be "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of all 
the Militia, and Admiral of the Navy of the State, to 
whom the good people of this State are to pay due 
obedience according to the laws and Constitution 
thereof." 

Already on July 16 the Council of Safety had issued 
a summons convening the Legislature at Kingston on 
August 1. The disturbed condition of the State, how- 
ever, due to British invasions at the north, west, and 
south, made it impracticable for the members to meet at 
that time. Most of them were either actively engaged 






62 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

with the militia in the field or as actively looking for the 
protection of their families and property from the 
menaces of war. Clinton waited until August and then 
prorogued the meeting to August 20. Two days before 
that date it was evident that there could be no meeting 
of a quorum of either house, and a second prorogation 
was made to September 1. On this date a few members 
of each house were present, but not a quorum, where- 
fore the usual custom was practiced, of meeting daily 
and immediately adjourning until such time as a quo- 
rum could be secured. At last, on September 9, a 
quorum appeared in the Senate, and the next day one 
was secured in the Assembly. 

It was on the afternoon of September 10, 1777, then, 
in the little court house at Kingston, that the Legislature 
of the State of New York began its work. Adopting the 
custom of the British Parliament, which later was 
adopted by the Congress of the United States, the 
two houses met in joint session to listen to an address 
from the Governor, after the fashion of the speech from 
the throne. Clinton referred to the British invasions 
and the consequent delay in organizing the government; 
to the success of Schuyler and Herkimer against the 
British at the west; to the victory at Bennington, Ver- 
mont, a region then regarded as part of New York; and 
to the strengthening of Gates's army at the north and of 
the defenses of the Hudson at the south. He recom- 
mended speedy revision of the militia laws to meet 
existing conditions; revision of the fiscal system to 
provide for a necessary revenue and sinking fund 
against the debt already incurred ; and the enactment of 



1777] 



THE FIRST GOVERNOR 63 



an election law. Finally he urged scrupulous observ- 
ance of the distinctions between the executive, legisla- 
tive, and judicial departments of the State government. 

Three days later the Assembly, continuing to follow 
the British example, presented a Reply to the Address, 
congratulating the Governor upon his election, 
expressing approval of his reports and recommenda- 
tions, promising promptly to take up the matters which 
he had presented to its attention, and concluding: 

"The several precautions taken by the late Conven- 
tion for securing to the subjects (sic) of this State the 
full enjoyment of political, civil, and religious liberty, 
do equal honor to their wisdom and their virtue. We 
thoroughly approve your Excellency's intention to 
retain and exercise all the powers with which you are 
invested, and we trust that you will exert yourself 
vigorously to execute the laws for the restoration of 
good order and the suppression and punishment of vice 
and immorality — while, as faithful guardians of the 
rights of our constituents, we are determined neither 
to encroach upon the privileges of others, nor suffer our 
own to be invaded, we shall heartily concur in all things 
for the advantage of the people over whom you have 
been chosen to preside." 

To this the Governor formally returned his thanks 
and his expressions of confidence in the Assembly and 
its purposes. Several other communications were sent 
by the Governor to the Legislature, concerning the con- 
duct of the war. On September 18 he informed the 
Senate that on September 16 the Assembly had 
appointed John Morin Scott, Senator from the South- 



64 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ern district, Jesse Woodhull, Senator from the Middle 
district, Abraham Yates, Senator from the Western 
district, and Alexander Webster, Senator from the 
Eastern district, to compose the Council of Appoint- 
ment. On September 22 he met the Senate by appoint- 
ment "at the house of Christopher Tappan," to receive 
its reply to his address, and to thank it therefor; these 
utterances being similar to those which had already 
passed between the Assembly and the Governor. 

The two houses then settled down to constructive 
legislation, but before a single law of importance was 
enacted their deliberations were rudely interrupted. 
The British were forcing their way up the Hudson in a 
too much belated attempt to save Burgoyne; the same 
forces which some months before had compelled the 
flight from White Plains and Fishkill northward to 
Kingston. General Israel Putnam was in command of 
the defenses of the Hudson, but was unable to check the 
hostile advance, and soon the British passed around the 
Dunderberg and came upon Forts Montgomery and 
Clinton, the last defenses before Kingston would be 
reached. Governor Clinton himself was in command 
at Fort Montgomery, and his brother James at Fort 
Clinton. The garrisons of both scarcely equalled a 
quarter of the British strength, and on October 6 both 
fell into the hands of the British. Governor Clinton 
with a part of his force escaped and retired toward 
Kingston, knowing that the fall of that place was 
inevitable but hoping to delay the British advance until 
the archives of the government could be removed to a 
place of safety. This was done, a hiding place being 




Philip Schuyler 

Philip Schuyler; born in Albany, N. Y., November 22, 1733; 
served in the colonial army; resigned in 1757 and was sent 
to England to settle claims in 1758; delegate to continental 
congress, 1775-1777; state senator from western New York 
district, 1780-84, 1786-89 and 1792-97; again delegate to con- 
tinental congress, 1788-81; United States senator, 1789-91; 
1797-98; died in Albany, N. Y., November 18, 1804. 




Richard Montgomery 

Richard Montgomery, delegate to 1st provincial convention 
and soldier; born in Dublin, Ireland, December 2, 1736; grad- 
uated from Trinity college, Dublin at the age of 18 and entered 
the British army as an ensign in the 17th infantry; shortly 
afterward was ordered to America to take part in the expedi- 
tion against Louisburg; promoted to be a captain in 1762 and 
served in the expeditions against Martinique and Havana; re- 
turned to Europe in 1772, coming back to America in 1773 when 
he married a daughter of Robert Livingston; in April, 1775 was 
chosen to represent Dutchess county at the first provincial con- 
vention and in June of the same year was appointed one of the 
eight brigadier generals — and the only one not from New Eng- 
land — to lead the expedition against Quebec; he fell in the 
attack on Quebec December 31, 1775 and a monument was 
erected to him in St. Paul's churchyard, New York City where 
many years later his remains were transferred. 



1777] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 65 

found among the hills of Ulster county, at Rochester. 

The Legislature promptly ordered all possible pro- 
visions and livestock to be placed on vessels and sent 
northward to Albany, or to be removed to the interior. 
A Council of Safety was appointed, consisting of Wil- 
liam Floyd, Evert Bancker, Egbert Benson, Daniel 
Dunscomb, Robert Harper, Jonathan Landon, Levi 
Pawling, John Morin Scott, Johannes Snyder, Peter P. 
Van Zandt, Alexander Webster, William B. Whiting, 
and Abraham Yates; any seven of whom were vested 
with full powers of government as long as the neces- 
sities of the State should require and until the orderly 
reassembling of the Legislature should be possible. 
This was on October 7, in the forenoon. The Assembly 
then took a recess until four in the afternoon, and the 
Senate until the next morning. But when four o'clock 
came so many members of the Assembly had joined the 
militia in the field that no quorum could be had, and 
the next morning the Senate, finding that no quorum 
of the Assembly could be had, and realizing the futility 
of its own meetings in such circumstances, adjourned 
until such time as the Governor should think it proper 
to reconvene the Legislature. That ended all sessions at 
Kingston for a long time. 

The British reached Kingston on October 16 and 
easily swept aside the 150 militia under Levi Pawling 
and Johannes Snyder, who were all the American 
troops in the vicinity, and in a few hours more they had 
burned to the ground every building in the town save 
a single house. Governor Clinton himself lingered 
until the last, holding that the "captain must always be 



66 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1777 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the last to leave a sinking ship," and narrowly escaped 
capture. He made his way by night across the Hudson, 
and rejoined his family, who had been sent some days 
before to Pleasant Valley, northeast of Poughkeepsie. 
Thence he presently recrossed the river and made his 
way to Hurley, where he gathered such forces as he 
could. The Council of Safety, having escaped from 
Kingston, met on October 19 at Marbletown and took 
such action as was possible for the relief of the inhabi- 
tants who had been despoiled of their goods and homes 
by the British, and then repaired to Hurley, where it 
made its headquarters for some weeks. It was a striking 
coincidence that on the very day after the destruction of 
Kingston, Burgoyne surrendered his whole army at 
Saratoga. 

Thereafter for some weeks the affairs of the State 
were in the hands of the Council of Safety, which led a 
somewhat roving existence. But on November 21 that 
body sent a committee to confer with the Governor 
concerning the practicability of "putting an end to the 
sessions of this Council, either by calling the Legisla- 
ture of this State, or a convention thereof." Clinton was 
then settled at New Windsor, and could not or would 
not remove thence. That place was not large enough to 
accommodate the Legislature, and the nearest place to it 
that was large enough, and indeed the only such place 
near enough to New Windsor to suit Clinton's conve- 
nience, was Poughkeepsie, then a town of between 1,500 
and 2,000 inhabitants. The Governor therefore 
requested the committee to ascertain if suitable accom- 
modations could be obtained there, and, being assured 



1778] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 67 

that they could, he issued on December 15 a proclama- 
tion convening the Legislature at Poughkeepsie on 
January 5, 1778. The Committee of Safety met there 
on December 22 and daily thereafter until January 7, 
when it abdicated its functions in favor of the Legisla- 
ture, which at that time began meeting as a convention. 
This arrangement was necessary since there was not yet 
present a quorum of the Senate. The latter was secured 
on January 14, and on the following day the two houses 
resumed the meetings which had been interrupted at 
Kingston. The place of meeting was the Van Kleeck 
mansion, which had been used as a tavern. 

The first new business laid before the Legislature by 
the Governor was "the proposed Articles of Confeder- 
ation and perpetual Union between the United States 
of America," with a letter from the Continental Con- 
gress of November 17, 1777, recommending them to 
the Legislature of New York for consideration and 
approval. These Articles were promptly and favorably 
considered, and on February 6 were ratified, the act of 
ratification forming Chapter I of the Laws of the State 
of New York. The New York Delegates to the Conti- 
nental Congress were by the same act instructed to sign 
the Articles. But this was done with a reservation to 
the effect that the ratification and signature should not 
become valid and effective until like action had been 
taken by all the other States. Although the New York 
Delegates, therefore, signed on July 9, and most of the 
others at about the same time, New York was tech- 



68 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1778 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

nically not a member of the Confederation until March 
1, 1781, when Maryland, the last of the Thirteen, signed 
the Articles. 

The other major topics submitted to the Legislature 
by Clinton in his first address to that body were taken 
up and satisfactorily disposed of in due time. Chapter 
XII of the laws, on March 16, provided for the more 
complete organization, jurisdiction, and administration 
of various departments and offices of the State govern- 
ment. John Jay was made Chief-Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the State; Robert R. Livingston was 
made Chancellor; and Philip Livingston, James Duane, 
Francis Lewis, and Gouverneur Morris were made 
Delegates to the Continental Congress. Chapter XVI, 
on March 27, was an election law. It designated the 
last Tuesday of April as the general election day, on 
which the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Senators, 
and Assemblymen should be chosen. Votes for Gover- 
nor and Lieutenant-Governor were to be cast by means 
of paper ballots, but those for members of both houses 
of the Legislature were to be given orally, with a voice 
audible to the inspectors of election. The official term 
of all these elective officers was to begin on the first 
Monday of July next following their election. This 
bill was vetoed by the Council of Revision, but was 
repassed over the veto. 

Chapter XVII, on March 28, was intended to 
rehabilitate the finances of the State by leving a tax of 
three pence a pound on real estate, and one penny half- 
penny a pound on personal property, to be paid to 
County Treasurers and by them turned in to the State 



1778] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 69 

treasury. This also was vetoed by the Council of Revi- 
sion, and was repassed over the veto. A State Treasurer 
was not provided for until Chapter XXVI, on April 1. 
A general militia law formed Chapter XXXIII, on 
April 3. It is of curious interest to recall, also, that 
Chapter XXXIV, on April 3, regulated the wages of 
mechanics and laborers, the prices of all goods and 
commodities, and the charges of inn-keepers, within 
the State. This was done in pursuance of an agreement 
which had been reached by the representatives of all the 
States at New Haven in January, at a Convention called 
for that purpose at the request of the Continental Con- 
gress. But as a number of the States did not approve 
that agreement or put it into effect, Clinton on June 
22, 1778, suggested to the Legislature the inadvisability 
of New York's acting independently, and the measure 
was then suspended and afterward repealed. 

Most of the other acts of the Legislature at this ses- 
sion had reference to matters of detail concerning gov- 
ernmental organization or the prosecution of the war, 
and were enacted with little debate or difference of 
opinion. On June 30, 1778, the Legislature adjourned 
without day. 

A proclamation was issued by the Governor on 
September 1 following, however, reconvening the 
Legislature at Poughkeepsie on October 1, 1778. Very 
few of the members were present on that day and a 
quorum could not Be secured until October 13, at which 
time the Governor again made a formal address to the 
houses in joint session, which was followed with replies 
from the houses and the thanks of the Governor for 



70 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1778 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

them. One of the chief topics discussed was the 
insurgency of Vermont, which at that time was claimed 
as the Eastern district of New York. In a message to 
the first session of the Legislature, on February 6, the 
Governor had referred at some length to that region 
and its "designing and deluded inhabitants who aim 
at independency," and the Legislature at his recom- 
mendation had adopted a measure confirming land 
grants and giving concessions and privileges to all 
actual settlers there excepting those who should "yield 
or acknowledge any allegiance or subjection to the pre- 
tended State of Vermont." In October, in its reply to the 
Governor's address, the Assembly referred strongly to 
the same subject, and significantly declared : "Little will 
avail our resistance to a foreign enemy and domination 
unless we can, by enforcing a due subordination to gov- 
ernment, establish peace and good order among our- 
selves." 

This session was brief, but was marked with the 
transaction of important business. A joint meeting 
elected Delegates to Congress, and the Assembly elected 
a Council of Appointment, the terms for which those 
officers had formerly been chosen having expired. The 
sum of twenty thousand pounds was placed at the Gov- 
ernor's disposal for the expenses of the militia when 
called into active service for the defense of the State, 
and other acts provided for the distribution of food and 
clothing to the army. The Governor transmitted to the 
Legislature on October 22 a resolution of Congress of 
ten days before, recommending, for the sake of "true 
religion and good morals, the only solid foundation of 



1778] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 71 

liberty and happiness," that the various States "take the 
most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, 
and for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, 
horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are 
productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general 
depravity of principles and manners." It does not 
appear, however, that any effective action was taken 
upon it. 

A noteworthy veto message came from the Council of 
Revision on November 5, directed against the Tax law 
which the Legislature had enacted. That measure 
provided for a surtax, levied according to the judgment 
of the assessors upon those persons who, taking advan- 
tage of the necessities of the country in time of war, 
had amassed extraordinary gains — in brief, who had 
been guilty of what in our own time has been known 
as "profiteering." The Council of Revision objected 
to this for a number of reasons : Because it violated the 
constitutional principle of equal rights; because to tax 
a faculty is to tolerate it, and a vice like profiteering 
ought not to be tolerated; because this method of 
punishing people for a vicious practice was unconsti- 
tutional ; because the Legislature was not authorized by 
the Constitution to exercise or to delegate the exercise 
of any such discriminatory power in assessing taxes; 
and because, on various and numerous other grounds, 
the provision was contrary to the public good. The bill 
was not repassed over this veto. 

The session closed on November 6 with an adjourn- 
ment to January 12, 1779. A quorum was not obtained 
in the Senate until January 27, or in the Assembly 



72 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1779 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

until January 28, on which latter date the session began. 
At the beginning of the session the Governor trans- 
mitted to the Legislature, simply for its information, 
copies of the treaties of amity and commerce, and of 
alliance eventual and defensive, between the United 
States and France. He also reported that he had sus- 
pended sentence of death, pending action of the Legis- 
lature, upon a woman who had been convicted of the 
murder of her illegitimate child. The Legislature 
thereupon passed an act granting the woman a full par- 
don, on the ground that her conviction had been 
procured in the absence of a material witness for the 
defense. This was the first pardon granted in the his- 
tory of the State. On March 16 the Legislature 
adjourned to June 1, to meet then at a place to be 
designated by the Governor. He did not, however, call 
it together at that time, so that it did not meet again 
during the life of that Assembly. A new Assembly had 
been elected in April, to assume office at the first of July. 
The third session of the Legislature was summoned 
by the Governor, in a proclamation issued on July 17, 
1779, to meet at Kingston on August 9, that place having 
been sufficiently rebuilt to afford suitable accommoda- 
tions. There was delay in assembling, as usual, so that 
a quorum was not obtained in both houses until August 
24. The Governor's address and the transactions of the 
Legislature had chiefly to do with the prosecution of 
the war and with State and national finances. John Jay 
having been appointed Minister to Spain, Philip 
Schuyler was chosen to succeed him in Congress, and 
Robert R. Livingston, the Chancellor of the State, was 



1780] THE FIRST GOVERNOR 73 

chosen to be an additional Delegate without forfeiting 
his Chancellorship. A bill to prohibit theatrical per- 
formances and horse races was effectively vetoed. On 
October 25 the Legislature adjourned to meet on 
January 10 at such place as the Governor might desig- 
nate. 

The designation proved to be a forecast of the future 
arrangements of the State government. On December 
1 the Governor issued a call for the Legislature to meet 
not at Kingston or at Poughkeepsie as before, but, for 
the first time, at Albany, and not on January 10 as 
appointed by the Legislature itself, but on January 4. 
A number of members were present promptly on the 
day set, but owing to a deep fall of snow and inclement 
weather a quorum did not arrive until January 27. The 
session was chiefly occupied with providing supplies for 
the armies and similar matters, and it adjourned to meet 
on June 1 at a place to be named by the Governor. 

He named Kingston again, in a proclamation issued 
on April 22, and set the time as May 9 instead of June 
1, largely because of the urgency of dealing with the 
system of finance which had been adopted by Congress. 
There was no quorum until May 25. The meeting 
lasted until July 2, when the Legislature adjourned 
without day, an election of a new Assembly having 
occurred in April preceding. 

The Fourth Legislature was summoned by the Gov- 
ernor on August 4, 1780, to meet at Poughkeepsie on 
September 4 following, and with unprecedented 
promptness a quorum of both houses appeared on Sep- 
tember 7. The hearing before Congress on the Vermont 



74 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1780-1 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

controversy was about to begin, the Delegates were the 
managers in behalf of New York, and it was necessary 
therefore to elect five Delegates to succeed those whose 
terms were at the point of expiring; which election was 
held on September 12. A bill was passed providing for 
the appointment of a Council to assist in the adminis- 
tration of the State during the recess of the Legislature. 
This the Council of Revision vetoed on the grounds 
that such Council would exercise powers of legislation, 
which were constitutionally vested in the Senate and 
Assembly and could not be delegated by them to others ; 
that the Council would interfere with the functions of 
the Governor, who was endowed by the Constitution 
with supreme executive power and authority; and 
because the proposal was repugnant to the spirit and 
letter of the Constitution, and would impair the effi- 
ciency of the government. The bill was not repassed. 

The Legislature adjourned on October 10 until Jan- 
uary 10, 1781 ; but the Governor on November 25 called 
it to meet on January 2, selecting Albany again as the 
place of meeting. A quorum did not appear until Jan- 
uary 31, when a very brief message from the Governor 
dealt entirely with military affairs. On February 24 
he reported to the Legislature, as of great importance, 
for prompt consideration, two acts of Congress, of 
February 3 and 4, recommending that the various 
States vest Congress with the power of levying duties on 
imports. Of this matter, which proved to be of vast 
importance and far-reaching political effect, we shall 
hear more hereafter. On March 19 he announced that 
the Articles of Confederation had at last been signed by 



1781] 



THE FIRST GOVERNOR 75 



all thirteen States. "This important event," he said, "as 
it establishes our union and defeats the first hope of our 
enemy, cannot but afford the highest satisfaction ; and I 
trust that this State will be as distinguished for its faith- 
ful adherence to this great national compact, so essential 
to the peace and happiness of America, as it has hitherto 
been for its exertions in the common cause." This also 
relates to something of which we shall presently hear 
more; in view of which Clinton's use of the word 
"national" is to be remarked as of special and signifi- 
cant interest. 

On March 31 the Legislature adjourned to meet on 
June 6 at a place designated by the Governor. On May 
8 he designated Poughkeepsie as the place of meeting, 
where a quorum did not appear until June 16. Mean- 
time at the April election there had been elected a new 
Senate and a new Assembly. Governor Clinton had 
himself been reelected in April, 1780, and Pierre Van 
Cortlandt had been elected Lieutenant-Governor, con- 
firming him in the place to which he had been elected 
three years before by the Legislature. 



CHAPTER IV 
FROM WAR TO PEACE 

THE Fifth Legislature was summoned by the Gov- 
ernor, in a proclamation of September 6, to meet 
at Poughkeepsie on October 1, 1781. A quorum 
was not obtained until October 24,on which day Gover- 
nor Clinton made his opening address. The first duties 
of the Legislature were to elect (by the Assembly) a new 
Council of Appointment and by joint ballot Delegates 
to Congress. These duties being performed on October 
25 and 26 respectively, the financial and other topics 
presented by the Governor were promptly taken up, and 
laws were enacted enabling the State Treasurer to 
exchange old Continental money for new; levying a 
State tax; requiring County Treasurers to make returns 
of taxes to the State; and raising the sum of 36,000 
pounds by tax for settling public accounts. On October 
29 the Governor had the joy of announcing to the 
Legislature the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, 
which had occurred ten days before. A long letter 
from Robert Morris, the national Superintendent of 
Finance, to the Governor, concerning the requisitions 
which Congress was about to make, was also laid before 
the Legislature. 

There was much discussion of the Vermont contro- 
very, which on November 19 culminated in the adop- 
tion of a drastic series of resolutions, declaring that the 
Legislature was "greatly alarmed at the evident inten- 

76 



1781-2] FROM WAR TO PEACE 77 

tion of Congress ... to establish an arbitrary 
boundary whereby to exclude out of this State the 
greatest part of the territory . . . belonging most 
unquestionably to this State as part, parcel, and member 
thereof; and to erect such dismemberment, possessed by 
revolted subjects of this State, into an independent 
State, and as such to admit them into the Federal union 
of these United States." In consequence of this menace, 
the Legislature declared it to be its sense that Congress 
had no authority to meddle with the extent of juris- 
diction of any State, except in controversies between 
two or more States, to admit into the Union any new 
State without consent of nine of the existing States, or 
above all, "to create a new State by dismembering one 
of the Thirteen United States without their universal 
consent." Therefore if Congress should make any 
attempt to carry its intention into effect, the Legislature 
of New York felt bound to declare such act an assump- 
tion of power contrary to the letter and spirit of the 
Articles of Confederation, and solemnly to protest 
against it. 

Three days later resolutions were adopted regretfully 
informing Congress that there was very little hope of 
New York's being able to comply with any of the requi- 
sitions of Congress. Then, on November 23, the Legis- 
lature adjourned to meet at Poughkeepsie on May 15, 
1782. 

On January 20, however, the Governor issued a 
proclamation convening it on February 11, and when 
on February 23 a quorum was secured he explained in a 
message the urgent reasons for this course. These were 



78 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1782 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

related to the salient topics of the preceding meeting. 
Congress was making requisition of aids in men and 
money, and there were important communications con- 
cerning them from the commander-in-chief and from 
the Superintendent of Finance. These Federal relations 
were so important and urgent as to overshadow all 
merely local issues. But the Vermont troubles could 
not be ignored, and the Governor therefore laid before 
the Legislature a mass of documents which proved, he 
said, "a treasonable and dangerous intercourse between 
the leaders of the revolt in the northeastern part of the 
State and the common enemy," adding that "these 
criminal transactions are not confined to individuals, 
but have been conducted under the countenance and 
sanction of that usurped government." 

Among the recommendations from Congress which 
were reported to the Legislature was one for the taking 
of a census of the white inhabitants of the State, pur- 
suant to the ninth Article of Confederation; and this 
was ordered by the Legislature on March 20. On April 
1 1 another Congressional suggestion was acted upon in 
the incorporation of the Bank of North America and 
the prohibition of the establishment of any other bank 
within th» State. On April 14 the Legislature 
adjourned, subject to the call of the Governor. 

There was no further call for the services of that 
Legislature. A new Assembly was elected in April, 
and on June 11 the Governor issued a proclamation 
convening the Sixth Legislature at Poughkeepsie on 
July 3, 1782. A quorum was obtained on July 1 1, when 
the Governor delivered an opening address agreeably 



1782] FROM WAR TO PEACE 79 

different in tone from those which had been largely 
monopolized by matters of war and wartime finance. 
"With great satisfaction" he announced the birth of a 
dauphin of France, and he dwelt at some length and 
with much earnestness upon the great desirability of 
fostering and promoting popular education. The great 
arrearages of taxes which had been reported suggested 
the need of some reform of the taxation laws; in 
response to which, in addition to the levying of new 
taxes, a stringent law for the collection of arrears was 
passed. No practical attention was paid, however, to 
the recommendations for public instruction. That 
matter was left for action two years later, after the Gov- 
ernor had again taken it up in his address in January, 
1784. After a brief session the Legislature adjourned 
on July 25 to meet on January 7, 1783, at a place to be 
determined by the Governor. 

Brief as was this session, however, it comprised one 
act which we must reckon among the most momentous 
and most far-reaching in its results of all that had been 
performed since the creation of the State. Indeed, it 
was one of the most important in the entire history of 
the State of New York, since it was nothing less than 
the first definite step toward drafting and adopting the 
Constitution of the United States and thus transforming 
the Confederation into a true Nation. In that incident 
the commanding figure of Alexander Hamilton first 
appeared as a factor in the politics of New York. He 
had only recently settled in New York City as a prac- 
ticing lawyer, and held no public office, though later in 
that same year he was elected a Delegate to Congress. 



80 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1782 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

He drafted, however, early in July, a most impressive 
series of resolutions, which he had his friends introduce 
into the Legislature, and which were adopted by the 
Senate on July 20, 1782, and by the Assembly a few days 
later — in each case by unanimous vote. 

These resolutions, referring to various representa- 
tions of Congress and of the Superintendent of Finance, 
expressed the opinion that the situation of the States 
was "in a peculiar manner critical" and afforded the 
strongest reason to fear that a continuation of the exist- 
ing constitution, or Articles of Confederation, would 
result in "a subversion of public credit and conse- 
quences highly dangerous to the safety and independ- 
ence of these States"; that the States might not there- 
after be able to secure pecuniary aid from France; that 
the plan then just adopted by Congress for the adminis- 
tration of finances was wise and sound, but that the 
provisions made by the individual States for carrying 
on the war were hopelessly inadequate; that the British 
government had adopted a new policy "calculated to 
conciliate in Europe and to seduce in America" and 
therefore very dangerous to this country; that the exist- 
ing system of these States exposed the common cause to 
a precarious issue; that the state of European affairs 
afforded reasonable grounds for confidence in American 
success if only a more effectual system of cooperation 
were adopted; that the radical source of most of the 
embarrassments was the lack of sufficient power in 
Congress, particularly in its inability to provide revenue 
for itself and thus to maintain public credit; that credit 
was essential, since the fullest revenue of the States 




Alexander McDougall 

Alexander McDougall; born on the island of Islav, Scot- 
land, 1731; came to New York in 1755; engaged in printing 
and was imprisoned as the alleged author of revolutionary 
documents; served in the war of the revolution until its close; 
delegate to the continental congress, 1780 and 1784-85; mem- 
ber of the state senate, 1784-86; died in New York City, June 
8, 1786. 



mmXL 




James Duane 

James Duane, first mayor of New York City; born in New 
York City, February 6, 1733; lawyer; member of continental 
congress, 1774-84; clerk of the court of chancery, 1762-1776; 
member of the revolutionary committee of 100, 1775; delegate 
to Annapolis convention, 1786; member of state senate, 1782-85, 
1788-1790; first mayor of New York City, 1784; delegate to 
state convention to consider Federal constitution, 1788 ; United 
States district judge for district of New York, 1789-94; died 
in Duanesburg, Schenectady county, N. Y., February 1, 1797. 



1782] FROM WAR TO PEACE 81 

would be insufficient for a time to meet necessary expen- 
ditures; and that therefore "It appears to this Legisla- 
ture that the foregoing important ends can never be 
attained by partial deliberations of the States separ- 
ately; but that it is essential to the common welfare that 
there should be as soon as possible a conference of the 
whole on the subject; and that it would be advisable 
for this purpose to propose to Congress to recommend, 
and to each State to adopt, the measure of assembling 
a general convention of the States, specially authorized 
to revise and amend the Confederation, reserving a 
right to the respective Legislatures to ratify their deter- 
minations." 

It would be impossible to exaggerate the epochal 
importance of that declaration. Its significance must 
certainly have been appreciated by the members of the 
Legislature, who without a dissenting voice approved 
it; and also by Governor Clinton himself, who, by order 
of the Legislature, transmitted the resolutions to Con- 
gress and also to the Governor of each of the other 
States. It was a pronouncement of which much was 
thereafter to be heard in the public affairs of both the 
State and the Nation, and it indubitably and indelibly 
marked the Empire State as the place of conception of 
the Constitution of the United States. After its adop- 
tion it was fitting that the Legislature should adjourn. 
Any further transactions at that session would have been 
an anti-climax. 

Kingston was selected by the Governor as the next 
place of meeting, on January 7, and was thus announced 
in his proclamation of November 12. It took twenty 



82 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1783 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

days to secure a quorum, and then, on January 27, 1783, 
the Governor sent in a message calling first and most 
urgent attention to the financial requisitions of Con- 
gress. Taxation, the payment of troops, and troubles in 
Vermont were other salient topics. The Governor 
referred with much bitterness to "outrages committed 
on the peaceable subjects of this State by persons acting 
under the authority of the usurped government 
attempted to be established in the northeastern part of 
this State." The Legislature declared it to be imprac- 
ticable to meet all the financial requisitions of the Fed- 
eral government, especially by exchanging specie for 
drafts, but it took some action looking to payment of 
troops. 

Most important of all was the Governor's transmis- 
sion to the Legislature, on March 8, of a letter from 
Governor Hancock of Massachusetts, conveying a 
resolution of the Massachusetts Legislature inviting the 
appointment of Delegates from the States to a Conven- 
tion at Hartford, Connecticut, to be held on the last 
Wednesday in April, "to confer on the necessity of 
adopting such a general and uniform system of taxation, 
by impost and excise, as may be thought advantageous 
to the several States mentioned in the resolution." He 
also transmitted a letter from Alexander Hamilton 
discussing Federal relations and the powers of Con- 
gress. It was decided to participate in the Convention at 
Hartford, and Ezra L'Hommedieu, Ephraim Paine, 
and John Lansing were appointed Delegates to it. 

The Governor transmitted on March 24 a copy of the 
agreement upon provisional terms of peace between the 



1783-41 FROM WAR TO PEACE 83 

United States and Great Britain which had been arrived 
at on November 30, 1782, and on March 28 added fur- 
ther dispatches announcing "the conclusion of the pre- 
liminaries of a general peace." On that day the 
Legislature adjourned subject to the Governor's call. 

There was, however, no further need of the services 
of that Legislature. In April there were held the tri- 
ennial election for Governor and simultaneously the 
annual election for members of Assembly, the result of 
the former being the practically unopposed return of 
Governor Clinton for his third term. Meantime great 
events were occurring. The war was giving place to 
peace. On September 3, 1783, the definitive treaty of 
peace with Great Britain was signed, and on November 
25 following the British forces evacuated New York 
City, thus redeeming the State from alien occupancy 
save for some military posts on the western frontier. 
On December 9 the Governor summoned the new 
Legislature, the Seventh, to meet in New York City on 
January 6, 1784. Despite the eagerness which members 
might be supposed to have had thus to reenter the place 
which had so long been held by the enemy, a quorum 
was not obtained until January 21. 

The Governor's opening address was much longer 
than usual. It began, naturally enough, with expres- 
sions of exultation and congratulation upon the return 
of peace and the complete establishment of American 
independence. Then it dwelt upon the imperative 
need of maintaining the public credit, of paying the 
soldiers, of restoring the commerce of New York, of 
providing a sinking fund, of promoting agriculture, and 



84 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1784 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

of providing for public instruction. Attention was 
called also to the plans of Great Britain for monopoliz- 
ing trade with the West Indies, which would operate 
greatly to the disadvantage of New York, and to the 
need of providing suitable compensation for public 
officials, of revising the militia laws, and of settlement 
of public accounts. Upon most of these matters action 
was taken by the Legislature, in the matter of public 
education the University of the State of New York 
being organized. A number of acts, some of this ses- 
sion and some of the preceding session, directed toward 
the penalization of British sympathizers and loyalists, 
were vetoed by the Council of Revision and were not 
repassed, of which we shall hear more presently. On 
May 12 the Legislature adjourned subject to the call of 
the Governor. 

That call was issued on August 20, and it summoned 
a meeting at New York on October 4. A quorum was 
secured on October 18. The first topic in the Gover- 
nor's message was the boundary controversy with Mas- 
sachusetts, in response to his presentation of which the 
Legislature provided for a commission to represent 
New York in an attempted settlement, its members 
being James Duane, John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, 
Egbert Benson, and Walter Livingston. Later Simeon 
DeWitt was also appointed a Commissioner; and still 
later Congress was authorized to appoint Commis- 
sioners to determine and mark the true boundary line. 

Other topics presented by the Governor for consider- 
ation and action were the need of paying the arrears of 
interest on the public debt, the evils of absentee land- 



1785] FROM WAR TO PEACE 85 

lordship, the need of taxation reform, of a better budget 
system and of codification of the laws, and the desir- 
ability of amendment of the act establishing the State 
University. Some of these were acted upon, and others 
were postponed; and on November 29 the Legislature 
adjourned until January 18, 1785. 

A quorum did not appear until January 27, at which 
time the Governor brought to attention another bound- 
ary controversy, with the State of Pennsylvania; and on 
March 7 an act was passed providing for the ascertain- 
ment and marking of that line. This session was 
notable for the number and importance of the veto mes- 
sages which came from the Council of Revision. One, 
on March 9, was directed against a bill "incorporating 
the several tradesmen and mechanics of the city and 
county of New York." In a long and elaborate docu- 
ment the Council argued that the proposed organization 
was superfluous and unnecessary for charitable pur- 
poses ; that its dues and the time spent at meetings would 
operate as taxes upon its members, which would induce 
them to resort to means for keeping up the price of 
labor or else would cause them to find themselves under- 
wrought by others; that such incorporation would give 
them special privileges, destructive of the principle of 
equal liberty; that the by-laws of the corporation were 
made in a measure dependent upon the municipal cor- 
poration of New York, wherefore either the mechanics 
would in time control the city government or that gov- 
ernment would control the mechanics, either of which 
results would be pernicious; that a precedent would be 
set whereby other groups of men would be entitled to 



86 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1785 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

like incorporation until the State would become not a 
community of free citizens but "a community of cor- 
porations composing an aristocracy destructive to the 
Constitution and independency of the State"; that the 
act purposed to incorporate not mechanics and trades- 
men generally, but only forty-three persons, who could 
control the body as a close corporation dependent 
absolutely upon their will; that these forty-three 
persons would have improper power over the other 
mechanics and tradesmen ; that they would have powers 
which might be used for the injury of the community; 
that the interests of the State required that industrious 
immigrants should not be confronted with such hostile 
influences as this corporation might exert; that the cor- 
poration was empowered to hold property to an 
unlimited amount with no provision to prevent the 
improper use of it or make the corporation accountable 
for it; and that, finally, "experience having pointed out 
no inconvenience in leaving the mechanics on the same 
footing with other members of the community, the bill 
holds forth no object sufficiently important to induce the 
change of a system under which they have happily 
prospered for a series of years in favor of one that 
presents many apparent inconveniences, and which, in 
its operation, may be more extensively mischievous 
than human prudence can at present foresee." The bill 
was not passed over the tremendous veto; though at a 
later date the Society of Tradesmen and Mechanics 
came into prosperous and beneficent existence. The 
veto is now to be recalled as a striking reminder of the 



1785] FROM WAR TO PEACE 87 

change in attitude toward such organizations which 
occurred in this State within the course of a few gen- 
erations. 

Another veto, on March 23, defeated a bill for the 
gradual abolition of slavery, because that measure 
disfranchised the freedmen and indeed all negroes and 
mulattoes in the State, and it was wisely deemed con- 
trary to the principles of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence and to the public welfare to create and maintain 
a considerable class of inhabitants who were not and 
could not become citizens. 

Another veto, on April 6, highly interesting to recall 
at this time, rejected a bill "to incorporate the German 
Society for encouraging immigration from Germany," 
because "it will be productive of the most fatal evils to 
the State to introduce into it a great number of 
foreigners, differing from the old citizens in language 
and manners, ignorant of our Constitution, and totally 
unacquainted with the principles of civil liberty, under 
such circumstances as will naturally tend to keep them 
a distinct people and prevent their blending with the 
general mass of citizens, with one name and common 
interest." 

The Legislature adjourned on April 27, subject to 
the call of the Governor. Meantime at the regular 
April election a new Senate — the third — and a new 
Assembly — the ninth — were chosen. On November 16 
the Governor convoked the new Legislature to meet at 
New York on January 6, 1786. It was ten days after 
the latter date when a quorum was secured and the 
Governor's address was delivered. He suggested to the 



88 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1786 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Legislature that instead of always awaiting his call, it 
should itself provide by statute for a fixed time of meet- 
ing once a year, as it was obviously its right to do. The 
proposal was acted upon, and on March 13, 1786, 
chapter 14 of the Session laws required the Legislature 
to meet annually on the first Tuesday of January, unless 
the Governor for some special reason should convoke 
it at an earlier date. The Legislature might on adjourn- 
ment fix its place of next meeting, but if it did not do so 
it should meet where it had last met. The Governor's 
address was largely devoted to financial matters and to 
the desirability of promoting agriculture, industry, and 
commerce. 

In response to an invitation from the State of Vir- 
ginia, the Legislature appointed Robert R. Livingston, 
James Duane, Egbert Benson, Alexander Hamilton, 
Leonard Gansevoort, and Robert C. Livingston, or any 
three of them, Commissioners to meet similar Commis- 
sioners from other States, u to take into consideration the 
trade and commerce of the United States — to consider 
how far a uniform system in their commercial inter- 
course and regulations may be necessary to their com- 
mon interest and permanent harmony; and to report to 
the several States such an act relative to this great object 
as when unanimously ratified by them will enable the 
United States in Congress assembled to provide for the 
same." 

The Legislature voted on April 29 to hold its next 
meeting in New York, and on May 5 it adjourned — 
curiously enough, to meet on the first Monday in Jan- 
uary, although it had enacted a statute prescribing the 



1786-7] FROM WAR TO PEACE 89 

first Tuesday as the fixed time for meeting. At the 
April election a new Assembly was chosen, and Gover- 
nor Clinton and Lieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt 
were reelected for their fourth terms practically with- 
out opposition. There was, indeed, some inclination on 
the part of his friends to put John Jay forward for the 
Governorship, but he, absorbed in national interests, 
gave no encouragement to the movement. Yet the 
incident was significant of the beginning of party divi- 
sions which would presently develop into political 
controversies, and even conflicts and animosities, of the 
most intense character. 

The Tenth session of the Legislature was, according 
to statute, to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of 
January, 1787. A quorum was not secured, however, 
until January 13, at which time the Governor delivered 
his opening address. He reported the settlement of the 
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania boundary disputes, a 
settlement which was ratified by the Legislature a year 
later. He also reported several Indian treaties, which 
also were acted upon in the following year. His 
recommendation of the creation of a new county, from 
a part of Washington county, was adopted, and the 
county appropriately named Clinton came into exist- 
ence in 1788. He announced the receipt of a letter from 
the President of Congress concerning the definitive 
treaty of peace with Great Britain, and also a resolution 
of Congress, to the effect that no State could of right 
interpret, explain, or construe a treaty, or restrain, limit, 
impede, retard, or counteract its operation and execu- 



90 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1788 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

tion; wherefore all State laws repugnant to this treaty 
should be repealed. The Legislature made such a 
repeal in February, 1788. 

The Legislature adjourned on April 21 to meet at 
Poughkeepsie on the first Tuesday of January, 1788, 
unless earlier summoned by the Governor. It was not 
thus summoned, but a quorum was not obtained at 
Poughkeepsie until January 11, 1788, when the Gover- 
nor made his opening address to the Eleventh Legis- 
lature. The chief purport of that address was to lay 
before the Legislature, without recommendation of any 
kind, the report of the Constitutional convention of 
the States, which had been held at Philadelphia. Clin- 
ton did not so much as say that he laid that report 
before the Legislature for such action as it might deem 
fitting, but merely for its information. What was done 
in that matter we shall see in another chapter. The 
Legislature adjourned on March 22, to meet at Albany 
on the first Tuesday in January, 1789, unless earlier 
called together by the Governor. 



CHAPTER V 
THE RISE OF PARTIES 

IT will be expedient at this point in our narrative to 
recur to some incidents already passed by, in order 
to appreciate accurately the causes and circum- 
stances of the rise of political parties in the State of 
New York. We must, of course, regard such a develop- 
ment as inevitable in every considerable commonwealth, 
but the causes of it are as varied as the States in which 
it occurs. We have seen that party divisions, if they 
can be said to have existed at all, were very vague at the 
organization of the State, and were made on social and 
personal lines rather than on political issues and prin- 
ciples. The only truly political division was between 
patriots and loyalists, between the friends of American 
independence and the sympathizers with British rule, 
between whigs and tories. This division was of 
course intensely marked. It was not merely political; 
it was militant. Between the two parties there was not 
merely rivalry but enmity and hostility. This was the 
case to a certain extent before the organization of New 
York as an independent State. It became the more 
marked after that event, because that organization was 
effected, naturally, by the patriot party alone, which 
thus came into exclusive governmental control of the 
State, and which not unnaturally or unreasonably 
thereupon began to exercise governmental discrimina- 
tion against the other party. 

91 



92 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

In this campaign against the British loyalists the 
leader was Governor Clinton himself. There was in 
all the United States no more devoted patriot than he, 
albeit, as we shall see, his devotion was more for the 
State than for the Nation. There was surely no one 
who more passionately and inexorably hated Great 
Britain and all British sympathizers. He has been 
quoted as having declared that he would "rather roast 
in hell to all eternity than be dependent upon Great 
Britain or show mercy to a damned tory." Nor was 
that mere rodomontade. In his official conduct as Gov- 
ernor he made practically manifest the spirit which 
those words expressed. 

Among the earliest acts of the Legislature under his 
direction were laws requiring an oath of allegiance to 
the State not only as a condition of citizenship, but also 
as a condition of residence within the boundaries of the\ 
State, and confiscating and ordering the sale of the 
property of all who had "adhered to the enemy." This 
latter meant in effect the confiscation without recom- 
pense of the estates of all who would not take the oath 
of allegiance. Some of the most extreme of these 
measures were, happily, vetoed by the Council of Revi- 
sion, but under those which remained, and in too many 
cases under an "unwritten law," the harshest of treat- 
ment was inflicted upon the British loyalists. Thou- 
sands of them, whose only offense was their unwilling- 
ness to renounce their British allegiance, were sum- 
marily driven out of the State, were sent within the 
British lines at New York City, or were permitted to 
remain within a certain pale under heavy bonds not to 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 93 

go beyond the prescribed limits. Heavy fines were 
levied and long terms of imprisonment were imposed. 
There was even resort to physical violence, and men 
were flogged and coated with tar and feathers, not 
alone by lawless mobs but in some cases with the 
acquiescence, if not at the initiative, of the Governor. 
The natural result of this strenuous policy was to 
devolop party divisions among the patriots themselves. 
On the one hand were those who were remorseless in 
their prosecution and persecution of tories; who had, 
it must be confessed, much provocation for their course 
in the acts which many tories committed betraying the 
patriot cause, as well as in the outrages which tories 
and their Indian allies had committed. On the other 
hand were those who favored a more moderate and 
humane, if not a lenient, policy, on the quite true 
grounds that only a certain proportion of the tories were 
guilty of anything more than passive disapproval of 
New York's independence, and that it would be a grave 
material injury to the State to expel so large a part of 
its population. During the war and for some years 
after the cessation of hostilities the former party was 
dominant, and the culmination of its ruthless policy did 
not occur until 1783. At that time, upon the evacua- 
tion of New York City by the British garrison, there 
was a wholesale exodus of the loyalists who had found 
refuge in or had been driven into that city, as well as of 
many others from other parts of the State. There is no 
authentic record of their numbers, but estimates range 
from fifty thousand to a hundred thousand, the latter 
figures being reported by Sir Guy Carleton. Even the 



94 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

smaller number would denote a serious depletion of the 
population of the still sparsely settled State. The 
exiles went chiefly to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 
where at St. John the anniversary of their landing was 
long commemorated, and where they and their descend- 
ants cherished for many years a resentment and antag- 
onism toward the United States, and especially toward 
New York, amounting to positive hatred. 

The first important division of official and political 
sentiment on this subject was manifested on March 25, 
1778. At that time the Council of Revision vetoed the 
bill providing for an electoral system, to which we have 
already referred. Among the reasons for this action 
was the fact that the bill disqualified and incapacitated 
to hold office, or even to vote, all persons who had since 
July 9, 1776, acknowledged the sovereignty of Great 
Britain, or denied the authority of the government of 
the State of New York or the independence of that 
State, or the authority of any of its preceding Con- 
gresses, conventions, or committees, or who should 
thereafter make any such denial. This, the Council 
held, was ex post facto legislation, it was arbitrary and 
unjust, it destroyed all benefit of repentance and possi- 
bility of reconciliation on the part of the former tories 
who might have become good patriots, because the dis- 
qualifications were not limited to take place only on 
judicial conviction of the offenders, and because the 
disqualifications savored too much of resentment and 
revenge to be consistent with the dignity or good of a 
free people. The Legislature, however, repassed the 
bill over the veto, and it became law; and a few days 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 95 

later it also passed the other measure, already men- 
tioned, giving the Governor power to expel from the 
State persons and families regarded as disaffected and 
dangerous, a characterization which was of course 
readily applicable to all who were unwilling to take 
the oath of allegiance to the State of New York. 

A similar issue was raised a year later when, on 
March 14, 1779, the Council of Revision vetoed a bill 
"for forfeitures and confiscations. " The Council 
objected to one clause of this measure because it confis- 
cated on account of alleged treason estates of persons 
who were dead at the time of its enactment — the estates 
thus confiscated being such as they had possessed on 
July 9, 1776, but which had since been inherited by 
other persons who might be perfectly good and loyal 
citizens. It objected to another clause because it for- 
feited the real property belonging on July 9, 1776, to 
inhabitants or subjects of Great Britain, a proceeding 
repugnant to justice, inviting reprisals, and capable of 
much abuse. This veto was effective, the Legislature 
not repassing the bill. 

This division of sentiment and policy over the ques- 
tion of dealing with tories was gradually transformed 
into a much more marked division over a much more 
serious question, the first great and fundamental issue 
which arose in the politics of New York, and an issue 
which, chiefly originating in New York, became fore- 
most for many years in the politics of the whole United 
States. This was the question of the relation of New 
York to the other States and to the Confederation; in 
its wider application, the question of State Rights or 



96 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

National Sovereignty. There was perhaps a hint at it 
in the refusal of New York to make its ratification of 
the Articles of Confederation valid until all other 
States had signed them. It was far more strongly 
marked in the disapproval which Clinton manifested 
toward the act by which in 1781 the Legislature com- 
plied with the request of Congress in providing that 
import duties at the port of New York and in the entire 
customs district should be collected under the super- 
vision of Congress and turned over to Congress for the 
treasury of the Confederation. To the Governor's 
mind, those revenues belonged to the State of New 
York and to nobody else, and the fact that New York 
was the port of entry for a considerable part of the 
other States did not alter that circumstance. His doc- 
trine, in spite of his reference to the Articles of Con- 
federation as a "national compact" forming a "union" 
of the States, was that the relationship among the States 
was that of a defensive alliance of sovereign powers. 
New York was bound to aid the other States against 
the British, but she was not called upon to give them 
pecuniary support. 

Congress in April, 1783, adopted resolutions recom- 
mending it to the States as "indispensably necessary to 
the public credit and to the punctual and honorable 
discharge of public debts" that they should by State 
legislation give to Congress the power to levy certain 
duties on imports, such revenue to be applied exclu- 
sively to payment of principal or interest of public 
debts contracted for the prosecution of the war, and 
such imposts to continue for not more than twenty-five 




William Duer 

William Duer; born in Devonshire, England, March 18, 
1747; attended Eton college; served in Anglo-Indian army; 
emigrated to the Province of New York, 1768; located in 
Washington county, where he was judge, colonel of militia, 
member of the committee of safety, and leader in the ante- 
revolutionarv movements; delegate to the continental congress, 
1777-78; removed to New York City, 1783; assisted Alexander 
Hamilton in organizing the treasurv department; died in New- 
York Citv, Mav 7, 1799. 




Francis Lewis 

Francis Lewis, signer of Declaration of Independence; born 
in Llandaff, Wales, March, 1713; came to America, 1735 and 
established mercantile houses in New York and Philadelphia; 
secured contract to clothe the british army in America, 1753; 
participated in French and Indian wars as an aid to Gen. 
Mercer; captured in Oswego, N T . Y. by forces under Mont- 
calm; taken prisoner to France and exchanged; on his return 
the colonial government gave him 5,000 acres of land in 
recognition of his services; delegate to the stamp act congress 
in New York City, 1765; delegate to continental congress, 
1775-79; siener of the Declaration of Independence; died, 
New York Citv, December 30, 1802. 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 97 

years. The duties were to be collected by State agents, 
amenable to and removable by Congress, and if a State 
failed for one month to appoint collectors they were 
to be appointed by Congress. It was also recommended 
that the Articles of Confederation be amended so as to 
base the apportionment of war expenses upon the States 
according to population rather than upon property, 
which change was made. 

New York's reply to the first of these recommenda- 
tions was to enact a law granting the specified imposts 
to Congress, but retaining for the State the entire power 
and supervision of collection, though Congress was 
empowered to prosecute collectors for neglect of duty 
in the State courts. This was unsatisfactory to Con- 
gress, and in August, 1786, it recommended to Gov- 
ernor Clinton that he immediately call a special session 
of the Legislature for the purpose of amending the law 
in conformity with the original recommendations of 
Congress. This Clinton declined to do, on the ground 
that he had power to call a special session only on an 
extraordinary occasion, and this could not be so 
regarded, seeing that the subject had been before the 
Legislature at its last session and had then been acted 
upon. Congress retorted by reemphasizing the need of 
a uniform system of impost revenue, by pointing out 
that New York was the only State that had not adopted 
the plan proposed by Congress and that its failure to 
do so was having most embarrassing consequences, and 
by repeating the earnest recommendation for immediate 
action at a special session of the Legislature. Clinton 
persisted in his refusal to call such a session, but in his 



98 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

address to the Legislature at the opening of the regular 
session on January 13, 1787, he referred to the matter in 
a non-committal way as something deserving of atten- 
tion. The result was the enactment in April of a new 
Customs law, still maintaining the principle that the 
impost was to be collected by the State and granted by it 
to Congress, instead of being collected by Congress as 
of its own right. This was of course not satisfactory to 
Congress, but Clinton was resolute and the Legislature 
was loyal to him, and the matter accordingly remained 
in statu quo until the adoption of the Constitution of the 
United States. The controversy accentuated, however, 
the party differences which were being developed in 
New York, there being an increasing number of those 
who disagreed with Clinton's policy and who inclined 
toward the national point of view. 

Mention has already been made of the entry of 
Alexander Hamilton into the political activities of New 
York and of the nation. He had been too young to 
hold office or to vote at the time of the organization of 
the State, — he did not attain his majority until 1778, — 
though he was old enough to render invaluable services 
and to attain distinction in the Revolutionary army. He 
was, we must remember, only twenty-four years old 
when as a general in command of an army corps he led 
the final attack upon Yorktown which compelled Corn- 
wallis to surrender three days later. But despite his 
youth Hamilton had long been interested in State and 
national politics. At the age of nineteen he had pro- 
foundly considered the question of the collection of 
Federal revenues by Federal agents, and had become 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 99 

convinced that such was the only sound procedure. He 
had, of course, no part in the act of 1781, already men- 
tioned, providing for collection of import duties under 
Congressional supervision, though it was in accord with 
his ideas, but two years later, when at the age of twenty- 
six he was a New York Delegate in Congress, he 
earnestly advocated that principle, disapproved the 
action of New York in taking for the State full 
authority over collections, and was influential in urging 
an amendment which would give supervisory power to 
Congress. 

In this Hamilton was directly in opposition to 
Clinton. That opposition appeared also in his legal 
activities in New York City. Establishing himself 
there in 1782, he quickly acquired an important prac- 
tice, largely as the advocate of tolerance in the treat- 
ment of British subjects and loyalists and as the 
defender of their legal rights. In this he was of course 
moved by no sympathy with toryism or lack of 
patriotism, but by such just and enlightened motives as 
those which caused the Council of Revision to veto some 
of the disfranchising and confiscatory acts of the 
Legislature. It is of curious interest to recall, too, that 
he, who has commonly been regarded as inclining 
toward aristocracy or oligarchy rather than democracy, 
based his argument against these extreme measures on 
the ground of democracy. "If the Legislature can dis- 
franchise at pleasure," he said, "it may soon confine all 
the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish 
an aristocracy or an oligarchy. If it may banish at 
discretion, no man can be safe." Therefore he depre- 



100 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

cated the creation, through indulgence in momentary 
passion, of precedents and principles which might later 
prove fatal to free government. 

Despite these radical differences, Clinton and Ham- 
ilton for some time seemed to be in substantial accord. 
Indeed, they cooperated on the very matter of the 
powers of the Federal government on which they ulti- 
mately came to loggerheads and fought the first great 
battle in New York politics. As early as 1780 Clinton 
had complained to the Legislature of the lack of power 
of the Federal government. In his opening address to 
the Fourth session, on September 7 of that year, he said : 

"It is evident that our embarrassments in the prose- 
cution of the war are chiefly to be attributed to a defect 
in power in those who ought to exercise a supreme 
direction, for while Congress can only recommend and 
the different States deliberate upon the propriety of the 
recommendation, we cannot expect a union of force or 
counsel. From this conviction I take the liberty of 
submitting to you whether further means ought not to 
be devised for accelerating the proposed confederation, 
and thereby vesting Congress with such authority as 
that in all matters which relate to the war their requi- 
sitions may be peremptory. It is with pleasure I find 
this to have been the sentiment of a convention of com- 
mittees from three States lately held at Boston." 

As a result of the Legislature's consideration of the 
matter thus presented to it by Clinton, Philip Schuyler, 
John Sloss Hobart, and Egbert Benson were appointed 
Commissioners to represent New York at a Convention 
to be held at Hartford, Connecticut, in November, 1780, 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 101 

with authority to propose and to recommend "all such 
measures as shall appear calculated to give a vigor to 
the governing powers equal to the present crisis." They 
accordingly secured the adoption of a recommendation 
empowering Congress to levy taxes upon the States in 
proportion to their population, which was approved by 
the New York Legislature on March 29, 1781. In this 
Clinton cordially acquiesced, as he did also in the 
unanimous adoption by the Legislature in 1782 of the 
supremely important resolution drafted by Hamilton, 
which we have already quoted, calling for an increase 
of the powers of Congress and suggesting the holding 
of a general Convention of the States for the purpose 
of revising and amending the Constitution. Reference 
has already been made to Clinton's mention of the 
Articles of Confederation as a "national" compact. It 
may be added that in transmitting to the Legislature in 
1784 the memorable appeal of Washington for a 
stronger Federal government, Clinton said, in his open- 
ing address on January 21 : 

"Viewing the blessings we now enjoy as effects flow- 
ing from our union, you cannot but be attentive to every 
measure which has a tendency to cement it, and to give 
that energy to our national councils which may be 
necessary to the general welfare." 

The earlier of these utterances in favor of a stronger 
Federal authority may be interpreted as referring 
solely to the exigencies of the war, as indeed some of 
them obviously did. But the last quoted certainly had 
reference to permanent arrangements in time of peace. 
It would, however, be quite unwarranted to charge 



102 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Clinton with bad faith or inconsistency in taking the 
attitude and making the utterances thus described, and 
then a little later vigorously opposing the new Consti- 
tution. There was nothing in his record committing 
himself to anything like the surrender of State rights to 
national sovereignty which that instrument involved. 
It does, however, seem plausible and not unjust to sup- 
pose that having been elected Governor of New York 
four times with practically no opposition, and having 
a keen appreciation of the paramount importance of 
New York among the States, he began involuntarily to 
feel a sort of autocratic proprietorship in the Empire 
State, and reckoned it preferable for it to be by far the 
strongest, richest, and greatest among a group of inde- 
pendent commonwealths, reserving for itself all its 
resources and revenues in order to maintain that status, 
than to be merely the richest part of a unified nation, 
giving of its wealth and strength to the other parts 
thereof. 

Whatever his motive, he soon parted political com- 
pany with Hamilton. A breach in their relations 
occurred in 1786. In that year Congress summoned a 
Convention of the States at Annapolis to consider ways 
and means for the regulation of commerce, and the 
Delegates from New York were Egbert Benson and 
Alexander Hamilton. The calling of that Convention 
was due in some measure to the action which the New 
York Legislature had taken at Hamilton's suggestion 
and with Clinton's concurrence, and the most important 
act of the Convention was the adoption of a set of 
resolutions proposed by Hamilton. These resolutions 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 103 

were identical with those which he had got the New 
York Legislature to adopt unanimously four years 
before, declaring the government of the Confederation 
inefficient and calling for a Convention to revise and 
amend the Constitution. These were, as we have said, 
adopted by the Annapolis Convention, and were the sure 
precursors of the Constitution of the United States. But 
when they were referred back to the New York Legis- 
lature for ratification, that body, under Clinton's 
influence, rejected them. Obviously, there had been a 
change between 1782 and 1786. 

The movement for radical revision of the Articles 
of Confederation was not, however, to be stayed. 
Indeed, Clinton and all others were in favor of it, the 
difference of opinion being as to the extent to which the 
changes should go. The Legislature refused to approve 
Hamilton's resolutions in 1786 because Clinton — quite 
correctly — conceived that Hamilton was aiming at an 
entirely new Constitution which would subordinate the 
States to the Nation. But when the next year a resolu- 
tion was introduced into the Legislature instructing the 
New York Delegates in Congress to vote for a Conven- 
tion, it passed with Clinton's approval, and the Gover- 
nor manifested his broadness of mind by assenting to 
the election of Hamilton as one of New York's three 
Delegates to that Convention. Nevertheless, he saw to 
it that the other two were Robert Yates and John 
Lansing, Jr., two of the strongest supporters of State 
rights and strongest opponents of anything tending to 
sacrifice them to national sovereignty. Also, the Dele- 
gates were elected and commissioned "for the sole pur- 



104 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1787 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

pose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Appar- 
ently no chance was left for any such work as that 
which the indomitable Hamilton did in fact achieve. 

We need not here enter into the details of the Consti- 
tutional convention, which belong to the history of the 
nation rather than to that of the State of New York. 
Robert Yates was opposed to a national Union which 
should have a government of its own superior to those 
of the States, but he proposed no definite plan of 
improvement upon the existing Confederation. John 
Lansing very explicitly favored a plan proposed by the 
New Jersey Delegates, which merely amended the 
Articles of Confederation and left supreme authority 
in a Congress in which the States all had equal repre- 
sentation. Hamilton, though at first doubting whether 
it had sufficient strength, finally supported Madison's 
"Virginia plan," looking to the abandonment of the 
Articles of Confederation and the making of a new 
Constitution under which there would be a national 
government superior to and separate from the govern- 
ments of the States. As soon as it was evident that a 
majority of the Convention would support that plan, and 
that it would be adopted, Yates and Lansing withdrew 
from the Convention and refused afterward to sign the 
completed Constitution. The ground which they took 
was that to do otherwise would be to violate their 
instructions from the Legislature, which were, as 
already noted, to do nothing but revise the Articles of 
Confederation. In that they were technically right, 
and they were heartily supported and approved by 
Governor Clinton. The effect of their withdrawal was 



17871 



THE RISE OF PARTIES 105 



to leave New York without a vote in the convention, 
since the vote of a State could be cast only by a majority 
of its Delegates, and Hamilton, standing alone, was a 
minority of them. Hamilton was permitted by the 
Convention, however, to sign the Constitution, which 
morally he was more entitled to do than any other man 
in the world. 

On his return to New York, Hamilton found himself 
bitterly disapproved and discredited, not alone by 
Clinton and other political leaders, but probably by a 
majority of the people. The Governor rebuked him to 
his face for doing something which the State had not 
authorized him to do, and his friend Richard Morris, 
the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, said sadly, 
"You will find yourself in a hornets' nest." Nor was 
that foreboding exaggerated. The draft of the Consti- 
tution was sent by Congress on September 28, 1787, to 
the Legislatures of the various States, by nine of which 
it would have to be ratified before it became valid. In 
New York it was received with both vocal and manual 
violence. People denounced it as a "triple-headed 
monster." Friends quarreled over it and came to 
physical blows. Mobs were organized and riots raged 
in city streets. A political party, calling itself Federal 
Republican, was organized, the first regularly organ- 
ized political party in the State. Its object was to defeat 
what was declared to be "a deep and wicked conspiracy 
against the liberties of a free people," and to that end 
it sought cooperation with political leaders in other 
States, with the purpose of organizing a national — or 
rather an interstate — movement. 



106 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1788 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The real leader of this opposition to the Constitution 
was Governor Clinton, and his chief aids were Robert 
Yates, John Lansing, Jr., Samuel Jones, and 
Melancthon Smith; the last named being perhaps the 
most effective of them all. Hamilton, of course, was 
the chief protagonist of the Constitution. By his side, 
with eager zeal, came John Jay, who probably exulted 
in Hamilton's alleged violation of the instructions of 
the Legislature, in memory of the way in which, to 
secure the treaty of peace with England, a few years 
before he had led his two colleagues at Paris in throw- 
ing to the winds the still more imperative instructions 
of Congress. There came to the same side, too, such 
powerful aids as Robert R. Livingston, the Chancellor; 
James Duane, Mayor of New York; Richard Morris, 
John Sloss Hobart, and Richard Harrison. 

All these were among the members of the State 
Convention which was held at Poughkeepsie, begin- 
ning on June 17, 1788, to consider the Constitution. 
The Governor had merely mentioned the subject in the 
most formal and colorless way in his opening address to 
the Legislature in January, 1788, and was doubtless 
opposed to the holding of such a Convention and to any 
formal consideration of the Constitution, although four 
States had already ratified it and three others were 
considering it. He probably hoped that it would be 
ratified by nine States without New York. In that case 
a Federal Union would be formed of which New York 
would not be a member. If the scheme proved a failure, 
as he confidently expected, New York would be well 
out of it. If it proved a success, New York could gain 



1788] THE RISE OF PARTIES 107 

admission at a later date. The Union would always be 
glad to welcome so great a State as New York, which 
indeed geographically would divide the Union into two 
parts. If not, New York was great enough to get along 
alone. 

Although the Governor thus refrained from laying 
the matter before the Legislature, that body finally took 
it up. This was done at the instance of Egbert Benson, 
who moved the calling of a State Convention to act 
upon it. This motion was opposed by Clinton's fol- 
lowers, but finally prevailed through Benson's patriotic 
persistence. In the Convention the leaders of the two 
sides were Hamilton and Melancthon Smith. It was a 
battle royal between two men of masterful ability. On 
July 11 John Jay moved the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion without amendment; provided, however, that 
amendments might be recommended. A few days 
later Melancthon Smith declared that Hamilton's 
arguments had converted him to the side of the Consti- 
tution. That practically ended the contest. Governor 
Clinton, who was a member and president of the Con- 
vention, privately advised his friends to yield and to 
vote for ratification. On July 28 the vote was taken 
on Jay's resolution changed so as to read "that the 
Constitution be ratified in full confidence that the 
amendments proposed by this Convention will be 
adopted." The vote was thirty ayes to twenty-seven 
nays. Clinton declined to vote, and three other mem- 
bers were not recorded. The thirty affirmative votes 
were therefore one short of a majority of the Conven- 
tion, which had sixty-one members; but they were a 



108 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1788 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

majority of all that were cast. Had the vote been taken 
at the opening of the Convention, it would have stood 
two-thirds against the Constitution. 

This was the greatest defeat that Clinton had thus 
far suffered in his political career; indeed, the first 
that he considerably took to heart. He had, it is 
true, been defeated in some of his policies against the 
British loyalists. He had been compelled to yield to 
Congress the power to regulate the commerce of the 
States. But those were minor matters compared with 
this, which at a stroke reduced him from being the 
elected sovereign of an independent State to being the 
Governor of one of the members of a Nation with a 
national government supreme above him. All these 
defeats, moreover, had been inflicted upon him by the 
same man, a young man who had been a child in arms 
when he was a conspicuous officer in the French and 
Indian War, and had been still too young to vote either 
for or against him when he was first elected Governor 
of New York. Thereafter there was war between 
them; a war which for years dominated the politics 
of the State, materially affected and indeed dominated 
the politics of the nation, and made a deeper lasting 
impress upon American history than any other occur- 
rence of that time. 



CHAPTER VI 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 

THE vote of New Hampshire on June 21, 1788, 
made the Constitution of the United States valid, 
five weeks before New York accepted that instru- 
ment. The latter State was therefore not, strictly 
speaking, a charter member of the United States under 
the Constitution, but was admitted after the Union had 
been formed. The same was true of Virginia, which 
ratified the Constitution four days later than New 
Hampshire, and of North Carolina and Rhode Island, 
which postponed the act for several months. Moreover, 
having thus delayed acceptance of the Constitution, 
New York also delayed placing herself fully under its 
provisions. The ratification of the Constitution was 
perfected and proclaimed by the moribund Continental 
Congress at New York on July 14, and an order was 
issued for putting it into effect by the various States. 
On July 28, as we have seen, the New York Convention 
ratified the Constitution. But it was not until October 
13, 1788, that Governor Clinton summoned the Twelfth 
Legislature to meet at Albany to take action upon it, 
and he set the date of the meeting as late as December 8. 
It was not until December 1 1 that a quorum was 
secured. 

In his opening address Clinton said that he had called 
the special session in order to lay before it the report of 
the proceedings of the Constitutional convention at 

109 



110 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1788 9 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Poughkeepsie, more than four months before, and also 
the action of Congress. He of course fully acquiesced 
in what had been done, but he urged that New York 
should be insistent and resolute in demanding the adop- 
tion of the amendments to the Constitution, without 
assurance of which the State would not have voted for 
ratification. In a subsequent special message he 
expressed regret that he could not have called the 
Legislature together in time to have it provide for the 
popular election of Presidential Electors. Since that 
could not be done, he recommended that the Legislature 
appoint them in a way which should most closely 
approximate election by the people. Congress had 
designated the first Wednesday in January, which 
would be January 7, for the appointment or election of 
Electors, and the first Wednesday in February for the 
meetings of the Electors for their choice of the Presi- 
dent. New York was entitled to eight Electors. 
Accordingly on December 18 the Senate passed a bill 
providing for the choice of four Electors by itself, and 
four by the Assembly. This the Assembly rejected, and 
it passed instead a bill providing for the nomination of 
eight candidates by each house and then the election of 
eight by the two houses in joint session. This the Senate 
rejected, and nothing more was done until January 5, 
when a conference of the two houses was held, with no 
result. The day set for choice of Electors was only two 
days off, and no method of choosing them had been 
adopted. Finally on January 7 the Senate repassed its 
former bill, and the Assembly again rejected it; and 
the Assembly repassed its former bill, and the Senate 



1789] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 111 

rejected it. The result was that New York, having had 
none but an ex post facto part in the adoption of the 
national Constitution, had no part whatever in the 
first election of a President of the United States. A 
similar disagreement between the two houses of the 
Legislature prevented the election of United States 
Senators, so that New York was unrepresented in that 
body at the first session of the United States Congress. 

The Twelfth Legislature took, however, some 
important action concerning relations with the Indian 
tribes, and it enacted a measure drafted by Samuel 
Jones "for the amendment of the law and the better 
advancement of justice," which was of inestimable 
value in reforming and improving the State's whole 
system of jurisprudence. On March 3, 1789, it 
adjourned sine die. 

Now came the first great electoral contest in the State 
of New York. The people were pretty evenly divided 
between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and each 
party had a leader of transcendent power. The Fed- 
eralist leader was Hamilton; young, gifted with genius 
of constructive statesmanship beyond any man of his 
time, enjoying the confidence and special favor of 
Washington, but fatally lacking in the party-leading 
and men-manipulating arts of the practical politician. 
The Anti-Federalist leader was the veteran Clinton, 
with tremendous prestige of achievement, with great 
intellectual ability, with unsurpassed personal popu- 
larity, and with consummate mastery of every trick in 



112 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1789 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the whole game of political diplomacy. And Clinton 
was a candidate for reelection, for his fifth consecutive 
term. 

The election was to be held in April, 1789. As early 
as February 11 the Federalists held a caucus in New 
York, to select a candidate with whom to oppose Clin- 
ton. Hamilton dominated the meeting; with him in it 
were James Duane, William Duer, Robert Troup, 
Richard Harrison, and— mirabile dictu, and for that 
occasion only — Aaron Burr. The strongest possible 
candidate would doubtless have been John Jay; but he 
was absorbed in national affairs and was not to be 
thought of. Next to him, most Federalists turned 
toward Richard Morris, the Chief-Justice of the 
Supreme Court, while a considerable minority favored 
Pierre Van Cortlandt, the Lieutenant-Governor. 
Hamilton, however, .succeeded in persuading them to 
nominate Robert Yates, who was an Associate-Justice of 
the Supreme Court. Now, Yates was an Anti-Federalist. 
He had withdrawn from the Constitutional convention 
at Philadelphia because of his opposition to Hamilton's 
plans for a national Constitution. He had bitterly 
opposed ratification of the Constitution by New York. 
Nevertheless, after its ratification he was prompt to give 
it full support, telling a grand jury that they and all 
loyal citizens must regard it as a charter second in 
dignity and importance only to the Declaration of 
Independence itself. He was not eminent for learning, 
though his talents were respectable; but he stood fore- 
most in integrity, impartiality, and independence. 




Alexander Hamilton 

Alexander Hamilton, statesman; lawyer; born in Nevis, 
British West Indies, February 11, 1757; came to U. S., 1772; 
served in continental army; secretary of treasury under Wash- 
ington, 1779; delegate to continental congress, 1782, 1788; 
member of federal commercial convention, 1786; regent, 1784; 
member of assembly, New York county, 1787; state constitu- 
tional convention, 1788; mortally wounded in a duel with 
Aaron Burr at Weehawken on the Hudson, July 11, 1804 and 
died on the following day. 




William Walton 

William Walton, 6th president New York chamber of com- 
merce, born New York City, 1725; succeeded his uncle, Wil- 
liam Walker, as merchant and shipowner of great wealth; 
president chamber of commerce, 1774-1775; sympathized with 
the patriot cause, but the family of his wife supported the 
crown and he was persuaded to retire to his country estate in 
New Jersey; when the British occupied New York he returned 
and remained until the close of the war and was untiring and 
earnest in relieving the suffering of American soldiers; in 1783 
he was elected vice-president of the chamber of commerce; died 
in New York City, November 7, 1794. 



, 789 ] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 113 

There could be no question of Yates's fitness for the 
Governorship. Neither could there be any doubt that 
Hamilton had selected him not alone for his merits but 
also for his availability as a candidate who would 
divide the Anti-Federalist party and rob Clinton of 
many of his supporters. A letter was written to Yates, 
signed by a number of eminent citizens, including 
Philip Schuyler and Philip Livingston, asking him to 
accept the nomination with a view thus to "heal the 
unhappy divisions in the country." On February 24 he 
replied with his acceptance. Beside the men already 
mentioned, John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, and other 
influential men arrayed themselves on Yates's — and 
Hamilton's — side. On Clinton's side were his brother 
James Clinton; John Lansing, afterward Chancellor of 
the State; Melancthon Smith, Gilbert Livingston, and 
Samuel Jones, the first Comptroller of the State and one 
of the foremost jurists of the time. 

For six weeks a vigorous and heated campaign was 
waged, ending with an election of mixed results. 
Generally the Federalists were successful. They elected 
a majority of the Legislature, and for Governor they 
carried most of the counties for Yates. But in his own 
county of Ulster, then one of the largest in the State, 
the vote for Clinton was so nearly unanimous as to give 
him a small majority in the State as a whole and thus to 
elect him for his fifth term. In Ulster county 
Clinton had a majority of 941, while in all the rest of 
the State there was a majority of 512 against him. He 
thus won by the narrow margin of 429 in a total poll of 
12,343. (It must be remembered, in explanation of the 



114 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1789 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

smallness of the total vote of the State, that at this time 
only freeholders enjoyed the franchise.) This purely 
personal victory went far toward consoling Clinton for 
the defeats which he had suffered at the hands of Ham- 
ilton. It also assured a continuance, and indeed an 
intensification, of the hostility between those two 
leaders. 

Almost simultaneously with this great personal 
triumph of Clinton, a great counter-advantage was 
gained by Hamilton. The inauguration of Washington 
as President of the United States occurred at the end of 
April, and Hamilton, as his closest and most trusted 
friend, was made Secretary of the Treasury, then by 
far the most influential place in the cabinet. That 
assured the filling of all Federal offices in New York 
with Hamilton's friends, and the appointment of others 
to other places under the administration. Thus John 
Jay became Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
United States — an appointment which, however, must 
be credited to his preeminent fitness rather than to the 
influence of Hamilton, though it was of course greatly 
to Hamilton's liking. James Duane, one of Hamilton's 
most devoted friends, a man of wealth, of long experi- 
ence in Congress, of spotless integrity, and of vast legal 
ability, was made United States District Court Judge. 
Richard Harrison, another brilliant lawyer, was United 
States District Attorney, and William S. Smith was 
United States Marshal. To these friends of Hamilton 
must be added Egbert Benson and two other Represen- 
tatives in Congress, and the two Senators, Philip 
Schuyler and Rufus King, when they were chosen a 



1789] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 115 

little later. In the State government, too, he enjoyed 
the friendship and support of Robert R. Livingston, 
the Chancellor, and Richard Morris, the Chief-Justice 
of the Supreme Court, together with various other 
officers, and a majority of the Legislature. 

As soon as "the tumult and the shouting" of the elec- 
toral campaign had died away, on June 4 Clinton 
issued a call for a special session of the Thirteenth Leg- 
islature, to be held at Albany on July 6, 1789. For the 
first time, a quorum was present on the day appointed, 
and the Governor delivered a brief opening address, 
saying that he had convened the Legislature for the 
purpose of choosing United States Senators, and making 
no other recommendations. The response of the Legis- 
lature was brief and perfunctory, and the two houses 
immediately addressed themselves to the task of pro- 
viding for the election of Senators. After a week of 
labor the mountain brought forth a particularly ridicu- 
lous mouse. The bill, on July 12, provided that when 
two Senators were to be chosen at the same time — some- 
thing which of course would seldom happen, if indeed 
ever after the first election, — if each house nominated 
different candidates each house should be required to 
elect one of those named by the other, but if only 
one Senator was to be chosen, and the two houses named 
different candidates, each house might from time to 
time offer to the other a resolution of concurrence, 
naming one of its own candidates, until at last agree- 
ment should be reached. This fantastic scheme was 
promptly vetoed by the Council of Revision, whereupon 
the Legislature by joint resolution appointed Philip 



116 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1789 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Schuyler and Rufus King to be Senators; the latter for 
the full term and the former for the short term with the 
tacit understanding that at its expiration he was to be 
reelected for a full term. Mr. King, it may be noted, 
had only recently become a citizen and resident of New 
York, having come from Massachusetts; but his com- 
manding abilities and his fine record in the Continental 
Congress commended him to all parties in New York 
as a worthy Senator. 

Congress having taken a hand in the Vermont con- 
troversy, and New York having reluctantly acquiesced, 
perforce, in the erection of what it had claimed as its 
northeastern counties into an independent State, the 
Legislature appointed Commissioners with authority 
to declare the assent of New York to such action. It 
was, however, found necessary for the Legislature, 
another commission, with somewhat different powers, 
to complete that transaction. On July 16, 1789, the 
during its second meeting, on March 6, 1790, to appoint 
Thirteenth Legislature adjourned to meet at New York 
on the second Monday of January, 1790, unless earlier 
convoked by the Governor. 

Meantime the political fight between Hamilton and 
Clinton had been marked with another first-class stroke 
by the veteran Governor. Egbert Benson, a friend of 
Hamilton's, had been Attorney-General of the State, 
but upon his election to Congress had resigned that 
office and had been succeeded, on May 14, 1789, by 
Richard Varick. The latter in turn resigned the office 
in September following, and on September 29 the 
Council of Appointment met to fill that and other 



1789] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 117 

vacancies. That Council then consisted of Samuel 
Townsend, Peter Van Ness, John Hathorn, and John 
Williams, all supporters of the Governor, with Clinton 
himself as president. The result of the meeting was 
the appointment of John Lansing, Jr., to be Mayor of 
Albany, and Samuel Jones to be Recorder of New 
York, both staunch partisans of Clinton and men of 
great ability and fitness for office, and also — and this 
was Clinton's master-stroke — Aaron Burr to be Attor- 
ney-General. 

In making this last appointment Clinton had doubt- 
less three motives. One was, to fill the place with a man 
of undoubted ability and professional fitness; and of 
Burr's answering that description there could be no 
question. Another was, to cause schism in the Feder- 
alist party. Burr had identified himself with that party 
in promoting the candidacy of Yates against Clinton, 
though he doubtless did so for reasons of political 
expediency and not at all on principle, the latter being 
something entirely foreign and unknown to him. He 
had a considerable following among the younger men 
of that party, and Clinton shrewdly judged that they 
would adhere to him if he transferred himself to the 
Anti-Federalist party. The third and by no means least 
motive was to oppose Hamilton with his bitterest 
enemy, for such Burr had already become. The 
instinctive dislike which had arisen between the two 
young men at their first meeting had grown steadily 
more intense; on Burr's side through jealousy of Ham- 
ilton's superior genius and the resentment which turpi- 
tude always feels against integrity, and on Hamilton's 



118 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1790 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

side through recognition of Burr's essential dishonesty 
and corruption and also because of Burr's venomous 
hostility to Washington, whom Hamilton loved and 
revered above all other men. Clinton deemed it a 
shrewd move, therefore, to put this bitter foe of Ham- 
ilton's into an influential political office, rightly assum- 
ing that for the sake of the place, and especially for the 
sake of thus being able to spite Hamilton, Burr would 
not hesitate to turn his political coat. In later years 
Clinton had cause to realize that the man of whom he 
had thus made use was unworthy of recognition by 
decent statesmen, being always for sale at the highest 
price he could command. 

No immediate results of this appointment of Burr 
were apparent, however, and the affairs of the State 
pursued an even tenor until the next year. The Thir- 
teenth Legislature met again at New York on January 
4, 1790, and secured a quorum on the following day. 
The Governor's address recommended the creation or 
improvement of means of communication, and as a 
result the Legislature on March 4 made an enactment 
for the building of roads and the surveying of routes 
for canals. A Legislative Apportionment act was also 
passed, on February 7. The Governor submitted the 
twelve amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States which had been proposed by Congress, arrange- 
ments were made for a census of the electors of the 
State, the revised action concerning Vermont, already 
mentioned, was taken, and on April 6 the Legislature 
adjourned without day. 



1790] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 119 

The most important political act of this Legislature 
related to the Council of Appointment. The body had 
been solidly Anti-Federalist. But the Federalists were 
now sufficiently in control of the Assembly to change its 
complexion. Accordingly, on January 15 they elected 
Philip Schuyler and Philip Livingston, who were Fed- 
eralists, and John Cantine and Edward Savage, who 
were Anti-Federalists — or Republicans, as Clinton's 
followers now began to call themselves. This was a 
commendable division of the Council between the 
parties, and certainly gave Clinton no cause for com- 
plaint, since he was ex-officio president of the Council 
and had the casting vote. Unfortunately, however, 
Philip Schuyler was United States Senator. At the time 
of his election to the Council nobody thought of the 
impropriety of his holding the two offices. But that 
was presently thought of, and twelve days later the 
Assembly passed a resolution declaring it contrary to 
the United States Constitution for a person holding 
office under the Federal government to be at the same 
time a member of the Legislature of New York, and 
that accordingly when a member of the Legislature was 
elected or appointed to Federal office his seat should be 
declared vacant. This entirely proper resolution was 
promptly adopted by the Senate also and became law. 
Under it, therefore, Schuyler's seat in the State Senate 
was declared vacant; as were also the seats of James 
Duane, who had been appointed Judge of the United 
States District Court, and of John Hathorn and John 
Lawrence, who had been elected Representatives in 
Congress. 



120 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1790 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The question of Schuyler's place in the Council of 
Appointment then arose. At a meeting of the Council 
on April 3 Mr. Cantine suggested that as the Council 
was, under the Constitution, to consist of four Senators 
and as General Schuyler's seat in the Senate had been 
declared by the Senate to be vacant, that gentleman 
could no longer be a member of the Council. That 
seemed logical. Philip Livingston, however, replied 
that if the Senate thus had power to vacate seats in the 
Council, it, instead of the Assembly, could control the 
composition of that body, which was certainly contrary 
to the intent of the Constitution ; wherefore he proposed 
a resolution of the Council to the effect that after the 
Assembly had appointed a man to the Council, the 
Council itself had no power to expel or disqualify him, 
even though his seat in the Senate had been declared 
vacant. This of course by implication, though not in 
terms, referred the matter back to the Assembly, where 
it obviously belonged. No action was taken by the 
Council upon either Mr. Cantine's suggestion or Mr. 
Livingston's proposal, and nobody appears to have 
thought of a pertinent precedent of nine years before 
when Ephraim Paine, a member of the Council, had 
been expelled from the Senate. At that time the Assem- 
bly at once elected Arthur Parks, a Senator, to Paine's 
place. But the Council, including Mr. Parks himself, 
formally protested against this proceeding and against 
Mr. Parks's right to a seat in that body; though in the 
face of that protest Mr. Parks did occupy his seat in the 
Council until the next Assembly, the next year, elected 
another Senator in his place. 



1790] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 121 

A few days after the discussion raised by Mr. Cantine 
and Mr. Livingston, a motion was made by Mr. Savage 
and adopted by the Council, requesting the opinion of 
the Assembly on the question. The Assembly after 
some debate replied that it considered it a question of 
law upon which it could not properly pass. Thereupon 
the matter was dropped, and General Schuyler, though 
in the face of protests and objections, continued to fill 
his place in the Council of Appointment until his suc- 
cessor was regularly elected by the next year's Assembly. 

Following this, a sharp contest arose over appoint- 
ments to office. Richard Morris, a Federalist, resigned 
his place as Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
State, and Robert Yates was appointed to succeed him. 
This was of course acceptable to the Federalist members 
of the Council of Appointment, and was cordially 
acquiesced in by the Anti-Federalists. Indeed, the 
appointment was made at Clinton's own suggestion, 
despite the fact that Yates had been his opponent in the 
Governorship campaign, possibly because he was glad 
to get Yates out of politics, though doubtless also 
because he appreciated his fitness for the place. Then 
came a fight over Yates's successor as Associate-Judge. 
The Federalists nominated Egbert Benson, and the 
Anti-Federalists nominated John Lansing and the latter 
was chosen by virtue of the Governor's casting vote. 
A similar contest was decided similarly for the choice 
of a Mayor of Albany to succeed Mr. Lansing, and for 
several other officers. 



122 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1791 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The Fourteenth Legislature assembled at New York 
on January 4, 1791, and secured a quorum the following 
day. In his address the Governor called attention to the 
need of making such provision for the creditors of the 
State as would maintain the public faith; in response to 
which the Legislature passed a suitable act on February 
23. His report that the census of electors had been 
taken, and that a legislative reapportionment of the 
State was in order, led to the enactment of an Appor- 
tionment bill on February 7. The need of better means 
of communication and transportation was again urged, 
and the Legislature on March 24 provided for the 
building of some roads and the surveying of canal 
routes. On the same day also, in response to a memorial 
from the Regents of the State University, transmitted 
by the Governor, authorization was made for the foun- 
dation of a College of Physicians and Surgeons. On 
that date the Legislature adjourned without day. 

The great event of this session of the Legislature was 
the election of a United States Senator to succeed Philip 
Schuyler. In order justly to appreciate the circum- 
stances, it must be remembered that at this time New 
York State was dominated by three great families. 
These were the Schuylers, the Livingstons, and the 
Clintons. Of the first, General Philip Schuyler was 
the head, while his son-in-law, Alexander Hamilton, 
was the most active protagonist. General Schuyler was 
one of the most worthy veterans of the Revolution, and 
a man of commanding ability, approved devotion to the 
public welfare, and spotless integrity; but also of 
unbending pride and autocratic spirit. Robert R. 



1791] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 123 

Livingston was head of the Livingston clan; also a man 
of vast ability, high patriotism, unsullied character, and 
singular personal charm. The Governor himself was 
the head of the Clintons, ably seconded by his gallant 
soldier brother, James, and the latter's son, DeWitt, 
destined to be the greatest of them all. 

Between the aristocratic Schuylers and Livingstons 
there was a natural affinity, rather than between either 
of them and the more democratic Clintons, and it was 
through a coalition of those two families that Hamilton 
had been able to defeat Clinton and secure New York's 
ratification of the Federal Constitution. At that time 
Chancellor Livingston was one of Hamilton's warmest 
friends and most resolute supporters. But with that 
strange lack of ability to manage men and parties which 
characterized him, Hamilton on becoming Secretary of 
the Treasury quite neglected to give any recognition to 
the Livingstons. John Jay, whose wife was a Living- 
ston, was indeed made Chief-Justice, but, as we have 
seen, that was scarcely to be credited to Hamilton's 
influence. Moreover, that appointment was actually an 
offense to the Livingstons, who had regarded the Chan- 
cellor as the logical candidate for that place. Schuyler 
was made Senator, but no Livingston was chosen to the 
other Senatorship, but a newcomer from Massachusetts 
instead. Nor was any member of the Livingston family 
chosen for a foreign mission, or for any other place 
under the administration of which Hamilton was the 
chief political manager. 

It would not have been human nature for Robert R 
Livingston to overlook or to condone such disregard of 



124 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1791 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

his friendship and his aid. His appreciation of Ham- 
ilton's ability may not have been lessened, but his per- 
sonal and political feeling toward him changed in a day 
from affection to bitterness. He called the family 
together in council, and decreed that thereafter there 
should be no favors shown to Hamilton, or indeed to 
the Federal administration so long as he dominated it. 
Later, when Washington offered to Robert R Living- 
ston the mission to France, which under other circum- 
stances would doubtless have been gladly accepted, it 
was almost indignantly declined. 

The open rupture between the Schuylers and Living- 
stons came in 1791. Early in that year a Senator was 
to be chosen to succeed Schuyler, who, as we have seen, 
had accepted the short term on the understanding that 
he was to be reelected. But less than two years had made 
marked changes in politics, and Clinton was now 
relentlessly resolute upon the defeat of Schuyler, not 
merely nor so much because he was Schuyler, as because 
he was the father-in-law of Hamilton. In the alienation 
of the Livingstons from Hamilton and therefore from 
the Schuylers he saw his opportunity, and in Aaron 
Burr he found his facile tool. He determined to put 
Burr forward as a candidate against Schuyler, and then, 
to assure the support of the Livingstons, he promised to 
secure the appointment of Morgan Lewis, brother-in- 
law of Chancellor Livingston, as Burr's successor as 
Attorney-General of the State. 

This "deal," as it would now be called, succeeded. 
Nominally there was a Federalist majority in the 
Legislature, which should have assured Schuyler's 



1791] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 125 

reelection, a result upon which both he and Hamilton 
confidently counted. But the Livingston influence 
changed a number of votes, and, as Clinton had 
reckoned, several of Burr's personal adherents were 
ready to go over to the Anti-Federalist side in his sup- 
port. Philip Livingston, a State Senator, alone of all 
his clan remained loyal to Hamilton and voted for 
Schuyler. In the Senate there were eight absentees, or 
at least non-voters. Of the sixteen present and voting, 
twelve voted for Burr and only four for Schuyler. In 
the Assembly Burr had a majority of only five. A 
motion was made to reconsider the vote and to substitute 
the name of Egbert Benson for that of Burr, but it 
failed. So Burr was elected Senator, and in fulfillment 
of the "deal" in the following November Morgan 
Lewis was made Attorney-General of the State. 

It should be added that the Livingstons generally 
gave as the reason for their revolt against Hamilton 
their disapproval of his funding system, and particu- 
larly his plan for the disposition of the State debts. 
There is no occasion to doubt the sincerity of their 
disagreement with him on this ground, though it is 
impossible to doubt that the other motives which we 
have described had commanding weight. 

The Apportionment act already mentioned as having 
been passed at this session was based on an enumeration 
of 19,626 electors, or 817 for each of the twenty-four 
Senators. The act made a Southern district of Suffolk, 
Queens, Kings, Richmond, New York, and Westchester 
counties, with eight Senators; a Middle district of 
Dutchess, Ulster, and Orange counties, with six Sen- 



126 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ators; an Eastern district of Washington, Columbia, 
Clinton, and Rensselaer counties (the last newly 
formed), with five Senators; and a Western district of 
Albany, Montgomery, Saratoga, and Ontario counties 
(the latter two newly made) with five Senators. Ten 
days later the new counties of Herkimer, Otsego, and 
Tioga were created out of parts of Montgomery 
county. The act also directed that the Assembly should 
consist of seventy-three members, apportioned among 
the counties as follows : Albany, Dutchess, and New 
York, seven each; Columbia, six; Montgomery, 
Orange, Rensselaer, Ulster, and Westchester, five each ; 
Saratoga, Suffolk, and Washington, four each; Queens, 
three; Kings, Richmond, Ontario, Herkimer, Otsego, 
and Tioga, one each. 

The Fifteenth Legislature met at New York on Janu- 
ary 5, 1792, with a quorum present on the first day, and 
remained in session until April 12. The Governor 
urged further attention to means of communication and 
transport, and in consequence acts were passed on 
March 30 for the incorporation of two canal com- 
panies — one to operate waterways from the Hudson 
River to Seneca Lake and Lake Ontario, and one to 
provide for navigation between the Hudson and Lake 
Champlain. His recommendations concerning educa- 
tion, a subject in which he was supremely interested, 
led to the appropriation of 6,900 pounds for Columbia 
College and 750 pounds a year for five years to the 
same institution for professors' salaries; and 1,500 
pounds a year for five years to be apportioned by the 
Regents of the State University among deserving 



1792] UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 127 

academies. Provision was also made for the appoint- 
ment by the Legislature on November 6 of thirteen 
Presidential Electors, the number being subsequently 
reduced to twelve by amendment on November 20, 
1792. 

The Sixteenth Legislature met in special session, 
according to the action of its predecessor, on November 
6, 1792, for the purpose of choosing Presidential 
Electors, and amended the act and completed that work 
on November 20. It continued in session thereafter for 
other legislation, and on December 18 passed a bill 
apportioning the State into Congress districts. With 
the intermission of a recess at the holidays, it prolonged 
its meetings until March 12, 1793, when it adjourne i 
without day. 



CHAPTER VII 
CLINTON AND JAY 

GOVERNOR CLINTON'S fifth term was draw- 
ing toward its close. His successor was to be 
chosen at the election of April, 1792. Thitherto 
he had invariably been his own successor. His original 
election had been practically unopposed, and at three 
subsequent elections he had been returned without 
serious demur. The first real contest had occurred in 
1789, and his surprise, resentment, and wrath at the 
impertinence of young Alexander Hamilton in organ- 
izing against him an opposition which all but defeated 
him knew no bounds. He was, however, too wary and 
wise a politician not to take warning from the incident. 
He realized that his tenure of office was no longer 
secure; he was no more to be reelected as a matter of 
course, but must fight. During these three years of his 
fifth term, therefore, he paid close attention to what in 
later years would have been called "fixing his political 
fences," and the beginning of 1792 found him ready for 
the fight. 

His foes also began their preparations well in 
advance, though it was not until two months before the 
election that their plans were complete and their candi 
date was named. Their first thought was for their 
former candidate, Robert Yates, but despite repeated 
pleadings he positively declined to run. He woul. ; 
support whatever candidate the Federalists selected, bu; 

128 




Melangton Smith 

Melancton Smith; horn in Jamaica, L. I., of Quaker ante- 
cedents in 1724; in husiness a merchant; member of first 
provincial congress in New York City, May 23, 1775 ; sheriff 
of Dutchess county, 1777; commissioner for detecting and 
defeating conspiracies against the government, 1777; member 
of continental congress, 1785-88; member of congressional 
committee that reported in 1787 the final draft of the Ordi- 
nance establishing a government of the Western Federal 
Territory, popularly known as the Ordinance of Freedom of 
the Northwest Territory; representative from Dutchess 
county in the Poughkeepsie convention for ratifying the 
Federal constitution, 1788; member of assembly, 1792; circuit 
judge, 1792; elected a sachem of the Tammany Society in 
1791, when fosiah Ogden Hoffman was grand sachem; died 
in New York City, July 29, 1798, the first victim of 'he yellow 
fever epidemic. 

This portrait was made from his only known portrait, 
which was in pen and ink, presumably drawn by one of his 
associates on the Ordinance Committee and found in an old 
trunk forty vears after his death. On it were the words: 
"Mr. Smith— 17S7-C. Congress." 



1792] 



CLINTON AND JAY 129 



preferred himself to remain Chief-Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Stephen Van Rensselaer, the great 
patroon, was the next choice, and was repeatedly asked 
to accept the nomination, but he too declined. Robert 
R. Livingston was approached, but positively refused to 
let his name be considered. A strong movement was 
then developed for Burr, promoted by the younger men 
of both parties, which for a time seemed likely to suc- 
ceed. At the last moment, however, Schuyler and 
Hamilton threw all their influence into the scale and 
prevailed upon John Jay to accept the nomination. It 
will be recalled that he had been suggested in 1786, but 
vetoed the movement, and that in 1789 he would have 
been the candidate instead of Yates but for his absorp- 
tion in national affairs. Now he assented to Schuyler's 
and Hamilton's urgings, though on condition that he 
should not resign the Chief-Justiceship in advance of 
election. He was nominated at a Federalist caucus in 
New York on February 13 and again at a mass-meeting 
a few days later. Stephen Van Rensselaer was nomi- 
nated for Lieutenant-Governor. 

Two days after the Federalist caucus the Anti- 
Federalists met, also in New York, and renominated 
George Clinton and Pierre Van Cortlandt for the 
places which they had filled for so many years. Some 
further efforts were made by Burr's followers to place 
him in the field as a third candidate, and there is little 
doubt that he would have accepted the nomination and 
become a candidate had it not been for his consuming 
hatred of Hamilton. A cursory canvass of the situation 
indicated that his support would be drawn more largely 



130 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

from Clinton's than from Jay's ranks, and there was 
therefore danger that his candidacy would defeat Clin- 
ton and elect Jay. Unwilling to give Hamilton a 
chance of such triumph, he finally decided not to run, 
and made a public announcement to that effect on 
March 15. Thereafter the contest was squarely between 
Clinton and Jay, with Burr using all his influence and 
exertions in Clinton's favor. The Livingstons also 
threw all their influence on Clinton's side. 

During the legislative session a serious attack was 
made upon Clinton in connection with the sale of public 
lands. At the establishment of its independence the 
State was the possessor of more than seven million acres 
of unimproved land, much of which was capable of 
improvement into great value. In 1791 the Legislature 
authorized the Commissioners of the Land Office to sell 
these lands in such parcels, at such prices, and on such 
terms as they pleased. It was obviously little short of 
scandalous to give such unlimited power to any men, 
yet it was done without serious objection and with the 
assent of both parties, so great was the eagerness to 
encourage immigration and settlement. Now, the Com- 
missioners to whom this enormous transaction was 
entrusted were the Governor, Ceorge Clinton; the Sec- 
retary of State, J. A. Scott; the Attorney-General, 
Aaron Burr; the State Treasurer, Girard Bancker; and 
the State Auditor, Peter T. Curtenius. During the 
year 1791 they sold 5,542,173 acres of land for the sum 
of $1,030,433. That was a small sum for so large an 
area, averaging little more than eighteen cents an acre. 
Worst of all, however, it appeared that no less than 



1792] CLINTON AND JAY 131 

3,635,200 acres had been sold to one man, a notorious 
speculator, Alexander McComb, at the price of eight 
pence or sixteen cents an acre, to be paid in five yearly 
instalments, without interest and with a discount of six 
per cent, on all payments made in advance. McComb 
was afterward sent to jail for this cause. 

There can be no question that this was all wrong. 
It was obviously contrary to public interest to dispose 
of the land in such large tracts, to men who were 
obviously and necessarily speculators and who would 
hold the land unimproved until they could resell at a 
profit. A long and acrimonious discussion ensued in the 
Legislature, in the course of which it was pretty directly 
charged, or at least insinuated, that the Governor and 
his friends had been personally interested in the 
transactions and would profit from them. This charge 
undoubtedly lost Clinton many votes, although it was 
doubtless entirely without foundation. Burr was the 
only one of the Commissioners whose honesty was not 
above suspicion, but not even against him could cor- 
ruption be proved. Some time after the election, Mr. 
McComb went before the Mayor of New York and 
made affidavit that the Governor had not been either 
directly or indirectly interested in the sales of lands to 
him. A resolution was introduced into the Legislature 
by Colonel Talbot, of Montgomery county, severely 
condemning the Commissioners for lack of judgment 
in the transactions, though not imputing dishonest acts 
or motives to them. This was finally defeated, and in 
its place was adopted, by a vote of 30 to 25 in the 
Assembly, a resolution fathered by Melancthon Smith 



132 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL L1792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

approving the conduct of the Commissioners. Mr. 
Smith was a man of the highest integrity and was 
unquestionably sincere in his act, which went far toward 
silencing criticism of the Commissioners. Yet his 
strong personal attachment to the Governor justifies the 
assumption that a part of his aim was to vindicate that 
official in the eyes of the electorate at the polling which 
was then only a few days distant. He doubtless believed, 
and rightly, in Clinton's integrity, and wished to vindi- 
cate it against unjust aspersions; but we can scarcely 
believe that he approved the judgment of the Commis- 
sioners in making those monstrous sales of land as they 
did. 

The campaign was conducted with all possible vigor 
on both sides, and with a regrettable degree of acri- 
moniousness, until the polls closed on election day. 
Nor indeed was it ended then, for the closeness of the 
result led to a bitter after-election contest and to a 
lasting belief, often expressed, that the result was not 
honestly declared. The law at that time required the 
votes to be canvassed by a joint committee of the two 
houses of the Legislature. The ballot-boxes of the 
various polling places were delivered to the Sheriffs of 
the counties and by them transmitted to the Secretary 
of State, who in turn delivered them to the canvassing 
committee, who were to count all the individual ballots 
and declare the result; and that declaration was to be 
final, without appeal. It is probable that this provision 
was illegal so far as the votes for members of the Legis- 
lature were concerned, since the Constitution followed 
the ancient rule of making each house the judge of the 



1792] CLINTON AND JAY 133 

election of its own members; but it was valid so far as 
votes for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were 
concerned. 

The canvassing committee met on the second Tuesday 
in June, 1792, to be confronted immediately with a 
grave technical problem as to the validity of some of 
the ballots before them. The votes of Otsego, Clinton, 
and Tioga counties were challenged. In the case of 
Otsego, there was no dispute as to the regularity of the 
election or the identity of the ballot-boxes and their 
contents. But it was pointed out that the Constitution 
provided that Sheriffs should be appointed annually, 
and forbade any man to hold the office of Sheriff for 
more than four successive years, or to hold any other 
office at the same time; that Richard R. Smith was 
appointed Sheriff on February 17, 1791, for a year 
expiring on February 18, 1792; that on January 13, 
1792, he wrote to the Council of Appointment declining 
reappointment; that on March 30 Benjamin Gilbert 
was appointed Sheriff, and qualified for and entered 
upon that office on May 1 1 ; that on the first Tuesday in 
April Richard R. Smith was elected Supervisor of the 
town of Otsego, and entered upon that office on the first 
Tuesday in May; and that the ballot-boxes of the 
county were delivered to Smith as Sheriff, and for- 
warded by him as Sheriff to the Secretary of State. It 
was contended that Smith was not Sheriff at that time, 
since his term of office had expired on February 18 and 
another man had been appointed in his place, and he 



134 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 11792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

himself had accepted another office; therefore the 
ballots had not been delivered to and transmitted by the 
Sheriff, as required by law, and should not be counted. 

In the case of Tioga county, the Sheriff delivered the 
box to a special deputy who, falling ill and unable to 
complete his journey, delivered it to his clerk, who took 
it to the Secretary of State; wherefore it was argued 
that those ballots should not be canvassed. 

In the case of Clinton county the Sheriff sent the box 
to the Secretary of State by the hands of a man who w? 
not his deputy; and for that reason it was argued that 
those ballots should be rejected. 

On the other hand it was contended that there was 
no question as to the identity or the integrity of the 
ballots, and that therefore despite any technical irregu 
larity in the manner of their conveyance they should be 
canvassed and the clear intent of the voters should thus 
be honored. The canvassers were divided in opinion, 
seven being in favor of rejecting the ballots of the three 
counties, and three in favor of accepting them. The 
great importance of the question lay in the fact, which 
was well known, that the result of the election for 
Governor depended upon it. If the votes of Otsego 
county were rejected, Clinton would be elected; while 
if they were accepted and counted, Jay would be 
elected. Clinton's friends on the canvassing com- 
mittee, therefore, led by Melancthon Smith and Samuel 
Jones, were for rejecting the ballots of the three 
counties, and Jay's friends, led by Isaac Roosevelt, were 
for accepting them. 



1792] CLINTON AND JAY 135 

The committee finally resorted to the extraordinary 
expedient of referring the question for decision to the 
two United States Senators. Rufus King gave his 
opinion in favor of accepting and counting the votes, all 
excepting a few which had been tied in a bundle to the 
outside of a box. He argued in the Otsego case that 
Smith was probably legally Sheriff, but at any rate was 
de facto Sheriff, since his successor had not yet qualified 
at the time of the delivery of the boxes, and that there- 
fore while his acts beneficial to himself might be void 
those tending to public utility were valid ; that the votes 
from Clinton county should be counted, because a 
Sheriff could deputize by parole; and that those from 
Tioga county should also be counted, because while a 
Sheriff's deputy might not make another a deputy, the 
election law should be construed liberally and in fur- 
therance of the right of suffrage. Aaron Burr, on the 
contrary, held that the Otsego votes should be rejected 
because the Sheriff did not hold over under common 
law, and there was no hold-over statute in his favor in 
New York; that the Tioga votes should be rejected 
because a deputy could not make another deputy; and 
that the Clinton votes might be counted because a 
Sheriff might make a deputy by parole. 

Upon receiving these opinions the canvassing com- 
mittee voted upon the course they should pursue. 
Melancthon Smith and five others voted to reject the 
ballots of all three counties, while the other four — 
including Samuel Jones, the ablest lawyer on the com- 
mittee and a supporter of Clinton — voted for their 
acceptance. They were therefore rejected and, the 



136 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

remaining votes being canvassed, Clinton was declared 
elected by a majority of 108 votes. Had the rejected 
ballots been counted, Jay would have been elected by a 
much larger majority. 

There can be no doubt that this decision of the can- 
vassers was grossly wrong. It confessedly nullified the 
undisputed will of the people, and it did so on the 
strength of technicalities of the most dubious kind. 
Since that time judicial decisions of the highest author- 
ity have been exactly contrary to the arguments of Burr 
and to the determination of the majority of the can- 
vassers. That such a man as Melancthon Smith should 
have made himself party to such a job, and indeed 
should have taken the lead in it, is a melancholy illus- 
tration of the power of factionalism to misguide even 
men of the purest character. It is not surprising that a 
storm of indignation swept the State. Mass-meetings 
of wrathful protest were held, and outraged passions 
were with difficulty restrained from violence. A word 
from Jay would have plunged the State into civil war. 
But that word was not spoken. On the contrary, that 
illustrious man, with a patience and dignity above 
praise, counselled moderation and emphasized the 
necessity of obedience to the laws. It would have been 
to Clinton's everlasting honor if he had rejected the 
finding of the canvassers and demanded the counting of 
ballots which he knew to have been honestly cast and 
honestly offered for counting. But he did not He 
acquiesced in the result as a matter over which he had 



1792] CLINTON AND JAY 137 

no control, as of course technically he had not. Legally, 
he was entirely within his right. Morally, it is impos- 
sible to acquit him of grave blame. 

Upon nobody in the whole sordid and iniquitous 
business, however, did so much culpability fall as upon 
Burr. We may absolve Clinton because he had come 
almost to regard himself as having a vested right to the 
Governorship for life. We may absolve Melancthon 
Smith, whose blind devotion to Clinton misled him 
more than once or twice. But Burr was inexcusable. 
He knew that his legal opinion was deliberately insin- 
cere and false. His motives were sordid and corrupt. 
He had no respect for the suffrages of the people. He 
wanted to defeat Jay because he hated him and still 
more hated Hamilton, and he was glad to bring an 
indelible smirch on Clinton's title. His life-long phil- 
osophy was to advance his own interests by betraying 
and destroying the interests of others. It is not the least 
of his titles to infamy that he was thus dominantly 
instrumental in bringing this first great reproach upon 
the integrity of the government of the State of New 
York. 

The State was, moreover, being irresistibly drawn 
into that vortex of alien factionalism in which the whole 
republic came perilously near to being engulfed and 
lost. Instead of Federalist and Anti-Federalist or 
Republican, the terms "Anglican" and "Gallican" were 
being used to describe the two parties; the latter being 
applied with far more truth than the former. A striking 
exhibition of this spirit was manifested at a great public 
banquet which was given to Clinton shortly after his 



138 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

inauguration for his sixth term. His installation 
occurred on July 2, and on July 19 the banquet was 
given to him by his political friends in New York City. 
The venerable Samuel Osgood, who had been Post- 
master-General, was toastmaster, and the toast list 
included "The Constitution of the United States,' 1 
"General Washington," "Thomas Jefferson," and "The 
French Republic." No other member of the United 
States government was mentioned, and no other foreign 
country. At that time the French Republic had not yet 
been proclaimed nor the king been deposed! 

It was inevitable that Clinton, in these circumstances, 
should enter upon his sixth term of office amid intense 
and unsparing hostility, not of the mob but of a large 
part of the best element of the State. Many of his own 
supporters were alienated from him, shocked at the 
spectacle of his benefiting from annulment of the popu- 
lar will. They were also attracted to Jay by his 
demeanor, which would have been worthy of Wash- 
ington himself. "The reflection that a majority of the 
electors were for me," he wrote, "is a pleasing one. 
That injustice has taken place does not surprise me. 
. . . A few more years will put us all in the dust, 
and it will then be of more importance to me to have 
governed myself than to have governed the State." 

The Governor began, however, to improve the 
political opportunities which his sixth term afforded 
him. The creation of several new counties and the 
growth of the State in population and general interests 
had so increased the business of the Supreme Courr as 
to overburden the three Justices with labor, and the 



1792] CLINTON AND JAY 139 

Council of Appointment in consequence determined to 
appoint a fourth Justice. That body was at this time 
equally divided between the two parties, with the 
Governor as president casting the deciding vote. It 
was therefore practically under Anti-Federalist control. 
On October 2 it voted, by virtue of Clinton's vote, to 
appoint Aaron Burr to the bench. But he was then 
United States Senator, and upon brief reflection he 
decided that the latter place gave him far greater oppor- 
tunities for political activities of his peculiar kind than 
the Justiceship would do, and he therefore declined the 
appointment. Morgan Lewis, the Attorney-General, 
was then appointed, and Nathaniel Lawrence was 
appointed to succeed him as Attorney-General. 

When the Legislature met in special session on 
November 6, as already recorded, to choose Presidential 
Electors, the controversy over the rejected ballots of 
the April election was reopened. The Federalists in 
the Senate objected to the seating in that body of John 
Livingston, from the Eastern district. That district 
comprised Clinton county, the ballots of which had 
been rejected. It was argued that if the votes of Clinton 
county had been counted not Mr. Livingston but 
Thomas Jenkins, his opponent, would have been 
elected, and that while the canvassing committee 
might have had the right to reject votes for the Gover- 
norship, the Senate itself was the supreme judge of the 
election of its own members and had a right to hold 
that those votes were improperly rejected. As the 
ballots had been burned — contrary to the custom which 
required their preservation — and therefore could not 



140 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 11792 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

now be counted, the election should be annulled and a 
new one ordered. Clinton's friends, however, took the 
extraordinary ground, in defiance of the Constitution, 
that the action of the canvassers was finally binding 
upon the Senate and that Mr. Livingston was therefore 
entitled to his seat, and this view prevailed by a vote of 
12 to 11. 

A few days later a company of about eighty men 
representing nearly all parts of the State came to New 
York and were introduced to the Assembly by Josiah 
Ogden Hoffman, one of the foremost lawyers of New 
York. They declared themselves to be the deputies of 
the people of the State, come to memorialize the 
Assembly for an investigation and redress of the outrage 
which the majority of the canvassing committee had 
perpetrated upon the voters of three counties of the 
State and therefore upon the whole State. The 
memorial was received and was referred to the com- 
mittee of the whole, and ten days later was taken up 
very seriously. Many witnesses were examined and 
their depositions were entered upon the journal of the 
Assembly, the case being conducted for the memorialists 
by Mr. Hoffman and by James Kent, afterward the 
famous Chancellor of the State. 

While this inquest was in progress, Clinton's friends 
presented a memorial demanding the impeachment of 
William Cooper, Judge of Otsego county, on the 
ground that he had encouraged illegal voting in behalf 
of Mr. Jay, causing men who were not freeholders to 
vote and preventing lawful electors from voting by 
gross intimidation. This memorial was also received 



1793] 



CLINTON AND JAY 141 



and investigated at great length, but no adequate ground 
for the impeachment of Judge Cooper could be found. 
In the end, also, the Assembly decided not to regard 
favorably the other memorial, but to sustain the action 
of the majority of the canvassing committee. The 
debates and investigations were a purely political fight, 
the first of its kind in the history of New York. It is 
not probable that either party of memorialists expected 
its presentation to be effective. The eighty "deputies" 
and their distinguished counsel could scarcely have 
expected the Legislature to declare the counting in of 
the Governor to be null and void, nor could the other 
memorialists have expected a Judge to be impeached 
for acts which, however improper in a citizen, did not 
in the least affect his conduct on the bench. The 
"deputies" were aiming to call further attention to a 
great wrong and to fix reproach upon the Governor and 
his partisans who were the beneficiaries of it, as a warn- 
ing against its repetition, while the petitioners for 
impeachment were trying to divert attention from that 
attack upon the administration by "back-firing." 

The net result of this agitation was decidedly favor- 
able to the Federalists, who at the election of April, 
1793, secured overwhelming majorities in both houses 
of the Legislature. The Governor had no occasion to 
convoke the new body before its regular meeting time, 
but during that summer his followers reemphasized 
their spirit of alien faction by going into ecstasies of 
enthusiasm over the French Minister, Genet, who had 
arrived in this country and had begun his scandalous 
career of violating neutrality and insulting Washington. 



142 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1794 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The Anti-Federalists of New York received him with 
almost hysterical welcomes and adopted resolutions of 
sympathy and compliment. The Federalists replied 
by adopting resolutions commending Washington for 
his wise and prudent course of strict neutrality between 
the European belligerents. 

The Seventeenth Legislature met at Albany on Janu- 
ary 7, 1794, and James Watson of New York City was 
elected Speaker of the Assembly. The Governor made 
a brief opening address, in which he obviously strove 
to avoid controversial politics. He referred to the 
European war, and expressed pious desires for peace. 
He however betrayed his "Gallican" sympathies in a 
somewhat bitter complaint of Great Britain's slowness 
in surrendering the western military posts as stipulated 
in the treaty of peace ; which was a matter pertaining to 
the national rather than to the State government. His 
most important recommendation was for a revision of 
the criminal code which would make it less blood- 
thirsty. The death penalty was then prescribed for a 
great number of offenses, and juries were unwilling to 
convict prisoners and subject them to that penalty when 
they would have convicted them for a more reasonable 
sentence. The Governor wisely argued that certainty 
rather than severity of punishment was the most effec- 
tive deterrent of crime. Unfortunately the Legislature 
did not act upon his recommendations, though its suc- 
cessor two years later did so. 

Immediately after the delivery of the address and the 
retirement of the Governor and the Senate from the 
Assembly chamber, the political conflict between the 



1794] CLINTON AND JAY 143 

two parties was renewed in a peculiarly significant 
manner. Mr. Hoffman, the leader of the Federalist 
forces in the Assembly, moved for the election of a new 
Council of Appointment. He made a scathing criti- 
cism of the existing Council, declaring its further 
activities to be a menace to the welfare of the State, 
and demanded immediate action. His motion was 
seconded by Ambrose Spencer and supported by several 
other Federalists. It was vigorously opposed by a 
number of the Governor's friends, who recognized it as 
a pretty direct attack upon him. They urged what was 
undoubtedly true, that the members of the Council of 
Appointment were constitutional officers, whose tenure 
was one year, and that the Assembly had no power to 
remove them, save by impeachment, before the end ot 
the year for which they had been elected. If another 
Council were at that time elected, they insisted, the 
existing Council would still continue in office with full 
power until the end of its constitutional term. They 
finally proposed that, in order to give time for reflection 
and to permit excited passions to cool, the matter be 
laid over until the next day. But that would not suit 
Mr. Hoffman and his followers, who insisted upon the 
choice of a new Council that very evening. The old 
Council, they declared, might at that very moment be 
planning mischief in the appointment of a Supreme 
Court Justice of notorious unfitness, and an hour's delay 
in displacing them might mean irreparable injury to 
the State. 

It will be remembered that a fourth Justice of the 
Supreme Court had recently been appointed, and that 



144 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1794 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Council had first offered the place to Burr. It was 
now pretty generally conceded that a fifth Justice was 
needed, although the Governor himself was not 
convinced of it, and the Federalists were desirous of the 
appointment of Egbert Benson, whom it was quite 
certain the existing Council would never choose. The 
Council was supposed to favor Peter W. Yates, though 
there is ground to believe that the Governor himself 
was opposed to him though, for political reasons, not 
openly. Now, Mr. Benson was doubtless a better choice 
than Mr. Yates, although the latter would not have 
been in any sense discreditable; but the division of 
opinion among the Anti-Federalist members of the 
Council, and the disinclination of the Governor himself 
to make any immediate appointment, made Mr. Hoff- 
man's haste for action appear somewhat uncalled for. 
He persisted in his demand, however, and the result 
was that that very evening the Assembly elected a new 
Council of Appointment. 

The old Council had consisted of Durand Gelston, 
of the Southern district, Joseph Hasbrouck, of the 
Middle, and Robert Woodworth, of the Eastern, Anti- 
Federalists, and John Frey, of the Western, Federalist. 
The Assembly elected as the new Council Philip 
Schuyler, Zina Hitchcock, and Selah Strong, Feder- 
alists, and Reuben Hopkins, Anti-Federalist. Despite 
the strenuous opposition which had been manifested to 
this action, and despite the grave doubts of its consti- 
tutionality, no serious effort at further resistance 




Robert R. Livingston 

Robert R. Livingston, chancellor; born in New York City, 
November 27, 1746; lawyer; city recorder, 1773-75; member 
provincial convention, 1775; delegate to the continental con- 
gress, 1775-77 and 1779-81; one of the committee of five ap- 
pointed to draw up the Declaration of Independence but 
returned to duties in the provincial assembly before it was 
signed; secretary of foreign affairs, 1781-83; delegate to state 
consitutional convention, 1788; chancellor, 1777-1801 and ad- 
ministered the oath of ofhce to President Washington, April 
30, 1789; defeated by John Jay for governor, 1798; minister 
plenipotentiary to France, 1801-4; assisted Robert Fulton and 
was his backer and partner in construction of the first steam- 
boats; died in Clermont, N. Y., February 26, 1813. 




Alexander Macomb 
Alexander Macomb, merchant; born in Belfast, Ireland, 




Georgetown, D. C, 1832 



1794] CLINTON AND JAY 145 

appears to have been made. The old Council accepted 
its dismissal, and the new Council entered upon the 
exercise of its duties unimpeded. 

The first important act of the new Council was the 
appointment of Egbert Benson to be a Justice of the 
Supreme Court, and over this a controversy arose which 
had far-reaching results. Down to this time the custom 
had invariably been for the Governor, as president of 
the Council, to make the nominations, and for the four 
members of the Council to ratify or reject them, the 
Governor voting only in case of a tie. But on this 
occasion Governor Clinton flatly refused to nominate 
Mr. Benson, doubtless because of nothing but personal 
and political animosity. Thereupon Philip Schuyler 
took matters into his own hand and himself made the 
nomination. Against this Clinton vigorously protested, 
insisting that the Constitution gave him the sole right 
and power of nomination; Schuyler on the other hand 
maintaining that the members of the Council had equal 
rights and powers with the Governor. The fact was 
that the Constitution was quite indefinite on that point 
and there was probably as good ground for the one 
contention as the other; though it must be conceded that 
Clinton's view was the more logical and was that which 
the Constitution ought to have warranted. 

The dispute went, however, further than this. 
Schuyler, intent upon visiting upon Clinton the full 
measure of his wrath for the humiliations which he had 
suffered at the Governor's hand, declared that the 
Council had the right and power to increase at will the 
number of officers not limited by law, and to replace 



146 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1794 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

with a new appointee any officer at the expiration of 
his commission. The latter contention was undoubtedly 
correct, provided that the Council had concurrent 
power of appointment with the Governor. The former 
was also probably correct, technically, on the same 
ground, though it is obvious that its application was 
susceptible of gross and disastrous abuse. Clinton 
logically argued that the Governor alone, and not the 
Council, was charged by the Constitution with the 
execution of the laws, and that therefore he was alone 
vested with discretion as to the number of officials 
needed to assist him in such execution. Concerning the 
second point, he conceded that the Constitution gave 
to officials no tenure after the expiration of their com- 
missions, but he rightly argued that they should not be 
dropped and replaced with others at the caprice or 
arbitrary pleasure of the appointing power, but should 
be retained or removed discreetly with a view solely to 
the public good. 

Clinton was right. But the fatal weakness of his 
position was two-fold. One was, that he was not 
explicitly sustained by the Constitution, which was 
indefinite on the points involved. The other, which 
practically counted for more, was that he was, as he 
himself must have recognized, an usurping Governor, 
occupying his place through a monstrous perversion of 
the forms of law and a flagrant denial of the indispu- 
table intent of the voters of the State. It was a righteous 
resentment against the iniquitous rejection of the votes 
which would have elected Jay that moved the people 
of New York to countenance the arbitrary course which 



17941 CLINTON AND JAY 147 

the Assembly under the lead of Hoffman and the 
Council under the lead of Schuyler pursued; a 
righteous resentment, yet with evil consequences, for its 
result was to mark the remaining history of the Council 
of Appointment with an almost unbroken succession of 
political scandals. It was the introduction of the spoils 
system into New York politics. 

The Governor in October following, 1794, published 
a strong protest against the arbitrary conduct of the 
three Federalist members of the Council of Appoint- 
ment, to which those members made a long and labored 
but not particularly convincing reply. They attempted 
to convict the Governor of misusing his appointing 
power for personal and political ends. In that they 
failed, for as a matter of fact not more than two or three 
times in all his long administration had Clinton made 
appointments which were reasonably open to such 
criticism. 

At the session of 1794 the Legislature enacted three 
measures arising from the disputed votes at the election 
of 1792. One provided that Sheriffs should hold office 
until their successors were appointed and qualified. 
Another required town inspectors of elections to canvass 
the votes and return the result thereof to the State can- 
vassers. The third — by the Assembly — dismissed as 
"frivolous and vexatious" the movement for the 
impeachment of William Cooper, Judge of Otsego 
county. The Legislature then adjourned without day, 
on March 27. 

The elections in April, 1794, resulted generally in 
favor of the Federalists. The new Legislature met at 



148 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1795 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Poughkeepsie on January 6, 1795, and the Assembly 
elected General William North, of Duanesburg, a Fed- 
eralist, Speaker. Governor Clinton for the first time 
was absent from the opening. He was in fact ill, at 
Greenwich, with inflammatory rheumatism, and was 
quite unable to leave his room. He accordingly sent a 
written message in lieu of the usual opening address. 
In this excellent document he referred to the European 
war and the consequent desirability of improving the 
defenses of New York harbor. He recurred to the need 
of revising the criminal laws, urging the substitution of 
imprisonment at hard labor in many cases for the death 
penalty. Taking up again his favorite topic of educa- 
tion, he reminded the Legislature that while it had 
liberally provided for the aid of higher and secondary 
institutions of learning, it had as yet done nothing for 
primary schools, and he recommended that some action 
for their benefit be immediately taken. The Legis- 
lature made haste to comply with this suggestion, and 
appropriated $50,000 a year, for five years, for distri- 
bution among the counties for that purpose. 

The Legislature adjourned on January 14 to 
reassemble at New York on January 20, and there 
continued in session until April 9, when it adjourned 
without day. Not the least important of its business 
was the election of a United States Senator to succeed 
Rufus King, whose term expired on March 4. The 
election took place on January 27, and Mr. King was 
reelected by a narrow majority of two in the Senate and 
five in the Assembly, although the Federalists had 
larger majorities than those in the houses. A new 



1795] CLINTON AND JAY 149 

Council of Appointment was also elected by the 
Assembly, consisting of Jacobus Van Schoonoven, 
Richard Hatfield, and William Powers, Federalists, 
and Joseph Hasbrouck, Anti-Federalist — the last- 
named being unanimously elected and the others by a 
vote of 36 to 29. 

A Governor was to be chosen at the April election in 
1795, and there can be no question that Clinton would 
greatly have liked to be returned for another term. But 
he realized long in advance that it was not to be. He 
had been Governor continuously for eighteen years. 
His private affairs sorely needed his attention. His 
health was seriously impaired, though he was still in 
the prime of life at fifty-six. The circumstances of the 
last election, when he had been arbitrarily "counted in" 
over Jay, bitterly rankled in the public mind and caused 
strong opposition to him to prevail even among former 
friends and supporters. Elections since then had gone 
heavily against his party. In these circumstances, 
therefore, it was not surprising that on January 22 he 
issued an address to the freeholders of the State 
announcing that he would not be a candidate for 
reelection. In that announcement he was doubtless 
sincere, as he was also in his expression of thanks to the 
people for their loyal support of him and their long- 
continued confidence in him; but his statement that he 
would "retire with pleasure" must be taken with a 
large grain of salt. Pierre Van Cortlandt at the same 
time announced that, on account of his advanced age, 
he would not be a candidate for reelection as Lieu- 
tenant-Governor. 



CHAPTER VIII 
JOHN JAY 

THE temporary retirement of George Clinton 
from the political field was generally recognized 
as a confession of expected defeat in the impend- 
ing election for the party of which he was the leader, 
and there was therefore no eagerness on the part of any 
of his lieutenants to be the candidate. There was some 
talk of Burr, and it is not improbable that he would 
have accepted the nomination if it had been offered to 
him. But the majority of the party leaders distrusted 
him and would not have him. Instead, they offered the 
nomination to Chief-Justice Yates, who six years before 
had been the candidate opposing Clinton. Probably it 
was the best possible choice for a hopeless case, for 
Yates was an entirely worthy candidate; though his 
willingness to accept the nomination, now from one 
party and now from the other, provoked much unfavor- 
able comment. It was observed that in 1789 he received 
the votes of nearly half the electors of the State, and 
that in 1795 he received the votes of nearly all those 
who had opposed him before, who were the other half 
of the State. Thus in the course of six years perhaps 
nine-tenths of the voters of the State cast their ballots 
for him, and yet he was not elected. William Floyd 
was his companion on the ticket in 1795, as candidate 
for Lieutenant-Governor. 

150 



1795] JOHN JAY 151 

There was less hesitation over the candidate on the 
Federalist side. A few indeed suggested Burr, but they 
were quickly cried down. Most would have been glad 
to have Hamilton, but he peremptorily and wisely 
refused to be considered. Instead, he practically dic- 
tated the nomination of John Jay, with Stephen Van 
Rensselaer, the great patroon, for Lieutenant-Governor. 
To this choice there was little demur. Jay was 
immensely popular, and his unrivalled fitness for the 
place was generally recognized. Moreover, it was felt 
that he had been most unjustly "counted out" at the 
preceding election, and there was a laudable desire to 
atone for that wrong. On the other hand, there were 
many who looked with grave apprehension upon the 
nomination and the possible result. Jay had been sent 
by the President the year before to negotiate a treaty 
with Great Britain, in circumstances which made it 
practically certain that the result of his work would 
be unpopular. The treaty had been signed on Novem- 
ber 19, and would soon be in the hands of the Senate. 
Its provisions had not yet been disclosed, but there was 
a widespread impression that when the treaty was 
ratified and published, there would be a storm of pop- 
ular protest and resentment against it, if indeed it ever 
did receive ratification. Hamilton, of course, knew its 
contents, and probably realized how unpopular they 
would be and how bitter a storm of wrath would break 
upon Jay when the character of his work was made 
known. But he doubtless counted upon the day of 
wrath being deferred until after Jay was safely elected 
Governor. Possibly he also counted upon being able 



152 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1795 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

to assure such delay, as indeed he was, the treaty not 
being laid before the Senate until long after the election. 
At any rate, he insisted upon Jay's nomination while 
Jay was still in England and unaware of the candidacy 
which was thus being forced upon him. 

Because of Jay's absence from the country, Yates's 
place upon the bench, and Clinton's retirement, the 
campaign was notably quiet and listless. It resulted, as 
had been confidently expected, in a notable victory for 
Jay, his majority being 1,589, more than three times as 
large as Clinton's over Yates six years before, and about 
fifteen times as large as that by which Clinton had been 
"counted in" over Jay three years before. All the five 
State Senators elected were Federalists, and that party 
secured a strong majority in each house of the Legisla- 
ture. The result was not officially announced by the 
State board of canvassers until May 26. Two days later 
Jay arrived at New York from England. He was 
welcomed by a great outpouring of the populace, with 
the enthusiastic manifestations of affection, confidence, 
and honor which that illustrious man richly deserved. 
Yet, as we shall see, this was only the first part of one of 
the most striking and most discreditable exhibitions of 
the fickleness of popular favor that history records. 

Jay was formally installed as Governor on July 1, 
The next day the text of the treaty was published in a 
Philadelphia newspaper, and a day later it was gen- 
erally known in New York. Then broke such a storm 
of hatred and obloquy as perhaps never had been known 
before or has been known since. Those who a little 
while before had been applauding Jay to the echo, now 



1795] 



JOHN JAY 153 



raved like maniacs against him. He was hanged and 
burned in effigy. In big white letters on Broadway, 
New York, appeared the legend: "Damn John Jay! 
Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay!! Damn 
everyone that won't put lights in his windows and sit 
up all night damning John Jay!!!" And it seemed as 
though the majority of New Yorkers escaped the curse 
by sitting up nights for that imprecatory purpose. A 
monster mass-meeting was summoned to give expression 
to public sentiment on the subject. To his great credit 
Hamilton challenged violence and death by attending it 
and attempting to speak in Jay's behalf. But the mob 
would not hear him. He was first howled down, then 
pelted almost to insensibility with brickbats and stones, 
and his life was saved only through his being carried 
away in the arms of his friends. Then the mob repaired 
to Jay's house, carrying the American and French 
flags, and before his door burned a copy of the treaty. 

Through all this Jay remained calm, dignified, 
imperturbable, integer vitae, scelerisque purus; confi- 
dent that time would vindicate not only the purity and 
patriotism but also the prudence and wisdom of his 
course. That treaty belongs to the history of the nation 
rather than to that of the State. But it is fitting here to 
record the sober judgment of the years that followed, 
that while the treaty had some regrettable faults, which 
Jav himself recognized, it was the best that it was then 
possible to make, it was on the whole immensely bene- 
ficial, and the negotiation of it was by no means the 
least, though it was the last, of John Jay's public ser- 
vices to the nation. Nor is it the least of the glories of 



154 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1795 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Empire State that at this early period it was one of 
her native sons who thus marked a new era in interna- 
tional relationships. For we must remember that it was 
this treaty which first established the principle of the 
extradition of criminals and the principle that private 
debts or contracts between individuals should not be 
annulled by war. 

The causes of this furious outbreak of brute wrath 
against Jay were several. One was the old animosity 
of Anti-Federalist against Federalist, of State rights 
against national sovereignty; an honest difference of 
opinion as to the constitutional relation between the 
States and the nation. Another was a legitimate 
objection to some features of the treaty and a lack of 
appreciation of its good qualities. A third was the 
unfounded fear that he would be a tool in Hamilton's 
hands for building up a powerful Federalist "machine" 
through official patronage. Another was resentment at 
his victory over Clinton, who was idolized by a multi- 
tude of followers. Another was the pro-Gallican and 
anti-Anglican mania which was unhappily prevalent at 
that time. Still another, and not the least potent of all, 
was a certain looking toward the coming Presidential 
election of the next year. Washington was certain to 
retire, and either Jay or Adams would be the Federalist 
candidate to succeed him. The opposition wanted 
Jefferson, and sought to discredit Jay as perhaps his 
most formidable opponent. Of course, while some of 
these motives were respectable and some not, they none 
of them, nor all united, could warrant the excesses of 
passion which were displayed. 



1796] JOHN JAY 155 

At that period, and in fact ever since the latter part 
of Washington's first administration, the old Anti- 
Federalists had become consolidated into a national 
party organization called the Democratic-Republican 
party. Its followers were popularly known as "the 
Democracy" — but originally and for some time they 
preferred to call themselves "Republicans" on account 
of their strong sympathy with republican France. In 
the respects of general composition, principles, and 
continuity this new organization is historically asso- 
ciated with the Democratic party of later times. In our 
narrative it will be referred to as the Democracy or 
Democratic opposition during the period of its national 
minority in opposition to the Federalists, and as the 
Democratic party subsequently to that period. 

The Nineteenth Legislature met in New York on 
January 5, 1796, a quorum being secured the next day 
and, as already stated, there being in each house a strong 
Federalist majority favorable to Jay. The opening 
address was comprehensive in scope and admirable in 
tone. Jay declared it to be his purpose to regard his 
fellow-citizens with equal eye; to cherish and advance 
merit, wherever found; to consider the national and 
State Constitutions and governments as being equally 
established by the will of the people; to respect and 
support the constituted authorities under each of them; 
and in general to exercise the powers vested in him with 
energy, impartiality, and prudence, an obligation of 
which he perceived and acknowledged the full force. 



156 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1796 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The address was rich in constructive statesmanship, and 
contained numerous suggestions which led to important 
improvements in the State government. 

Thus he called attention to the dispute which had 
been raging over the status of the Governor in the 
Council of Appointment, and the urgent desirability of 
settling authoritatively whether the Governor, as presi- 
dent of that Council, had the sole initiative in making 
appointments. With a fine sense of propriety he 
refrained from making any expression of his personal 
opinion on the matter, but commended it to the careful 
consideration of the Assembly and requested a declara- 
tory resolution concerning it. The Assembly, after 
much thought and discussion, decided that it would be 
inexpedient for it thus apparently to attempt to construe 
the Constitution. Perhaps it felt all the more reluctance 
to do so since Jay himself had been the author of that 
instrument. But a movement was then started which 
led directly to the Constitutional convention of 1801 
and the adoption thereby of an amendment more satis- 
factorily defining the powers of the Council of Appoint- 
ment. 

Attention was called by Jay to the inadequacy of the 
salaries then paid to the Chancellor and the Justices of 
the Supreme Court, which permitted them to make no 
provision for their years of retirement after the consti- 
tutional limit of age had been reached, and he urged 
that some measure of relief be enacted. This was 
interpreted by the Assembly as a suggestion of judicial 
retiring pensions, and a committee of that house 
reported against such a system but in favor of whatever 



1796] JOHN JAY 157 

increase of salary might be necessary to enable the 
Justices to make provision for themselves. This report 
was discussed at length and then laid aside without 
action, but in the ensuing Appropriation bill provision 
was made for a material increase of judicial salaries. 

Another recommendation was that assistance be given 
to the Attorney-General, who because of the growth of 
the State was sorely overworked and was in fact unable 
properly to attend to the business of his office. In 
response the Legislature on February 12 enacted a law 
dividing the State into eight districts and creating an 
Assistant-Attorney-General for each of seven of them, 
the Attorney-General himself to serve in the eighth, 
which consisted of the city and county of New York. 
Later in the history of the State the system was changed 
so as to provide a District Attorney for each county. 

Jay strongly renewed Clinton's recommendation of a 
revision of the criminal law so as to restrict the imposi- 
tion of the death penalty and to make better provision 
for the care of prisoners. In consequence the Legis- 
lature on March 26 provided for the establishment of 
State prisons and abolished the death penalty save for 
treason, murder, and the sacrilege involved in robbing 
churches. It also abolished the practice of flogging as 
a punishment. Before that time men could be put to 
death for petty larceny, while not long before, until an 
enactment in 1778, it had been permissible to apply 
torture to compel a prisoner to plead to his indictment! 

Having courageously remained at his post of duty 
during the yellow fever epidemic of 1795, Jay now 
urged action, which was promptly taken, for the better 



158 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1796 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

protection of the State against pestilences. His recom- 
mendation for further promotion of canal navigation 
was also productive of prompt and favorable results. 

At this session of the Legislature there was received 
from the Legislature of Virginia a draft of four pro- 
posed amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States, with the hope that New York would join in 
supporting them. These amendments provided for 
ratification by the House of Representatives of treaties 
affecting the powers of Congress or calling for Con- 
gressional action to fulfill their terms; for the provision 
of another tribunal than the Senate to try impeach- 
ments; for the reduction of the terms of office of 
Senators to three years, one-third to retire every year; 
and for making United States Judges ineligible to other 
offices. After much debate the Legislature voted that 
it was inexpedient to concur in these proposals. 

Jay was an ardent advocate of the abolition of 
slavery, and greatly desired to urge in his address the 
enactment of a measure for the emancipation of slaves. 
After much consideration, however, and with much 
reluctance, he decided not to do so, for fear that the 
personal animosity which had arisen against him and 
which had not yet subsided would be reflected against 
the cause that he had at heart. He knew that some of 
the Democratic opposition were in favor of emancipa- 
tion, but feared, probably with good cause, that they 
would not vote for it if he urged it. One of his friends 
in the Legislature, however, presumably through a 
private understanding with him, introduced a bill pro- 
viding for gradual abolition of slavery. It was debated 



17061 JOHN JAY 159 

at much length, and finally was narrowly beaten 
through the device of adopting a resolution to the effect 
that it would be unjust to deprive any citizen of his 
property without reasonable compensation to be paid to 
him by the State. This resolution met with a tie vote in 
the Assembly, and was carried by the casting vote of the 
chairman of the committee of the whole. Thereupon 
the subject was dropped for the remainder of the ses- 
sion. 

The census returns reported to the Legislature in 
January, 1796, showed 36,338 freeholders, and a total 
of 60,017 voters in the State. The increase of free- 
holders, who were electors for Senators, had been greatly 
promoted by the migration of substantial settlers from 
New England into the western part of New York. Now 
the Constitution fixed the number of Senators at 24, but 
provided for an increase of that number commen- 
surately with the increase in the number of electors, 
until the total should reach one hundred Senators. 
Under that provision the census of 1796 called for the 
election of twenty additional Senators, or forty-four in 
all, of whom seventeen should be chosen from the 
Western district, which comprised Albany and all 
counties to the west of it. This increase of Senators was 
thereupon provided for, but in order to equalize the 
Senatorial representation from the districts, Albany and 
Saratoga counties were transferred from the Western 
to the Eastern district. 

After an exceptionally busy and useful session the 
Legislature adjourned sine die on April 11, ordering, 



160 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1796 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

however, a meeting of its successor on November 1, 
1796, for the choice of Presidential Electors. 

The election in April, 1796, resulted most favorably 
to the Federalists. The State was ashamed of its brutal 
outburst against Jay of the year before, and the admi- 
rable character of his administration caused a strong 
reaction of sentiment in his favor. This was promoted, 
too, by disgust at the conduct of the French government, 
and admiration of the attitude of Washington toward it. 
The Federalists were also greatly strengthened by the 
immigration from New England already mentioned, 
as a result of which the State Senate became almost 
unanimously Federalist. 

The Twentieth Legislature met, according to the pre- 
scription of its predecessor, at New York on November 
1, 1796, and Gulian Verplanck, of that city, was chosen 
Speaker of the Assembly. Jay's opening speech was 
chiefly devoted to a most eloquent and sympathetic com- 
mentary upon Washington's Farewell Address, which 
was then communicated to the Legislature and was 
recorded in full in the journal of each house. He 
announced that the city of New York had generously 
given Bedlow's Island to the State for quarantine pur- 
poses, in consequence of which the Legislature made 
further enactments for the protection of health. He 
called attention to the need of better management of the 
fiscal accounts of the State, and in response the Legis- 
lature on February 17, 1797, created the office of State 
Comptroller. His recommendation of further highway 
improvements led to the enactment of a general High- 
way law on March 21, 1797. He announced that Rufus 




Rufus KlXG 

Rufus King, United States senator; born at Scarboro, Mass., 
March 24, 1755; lawyer; served in revolutionary war; member 
of Massachusetts legislature, 1782; delegate from Mass- 
achusetts to continental congress, 1784-87; United States 
senator from Julv 10, 1789 to May 18, 1796 when he resigned; 
minister to Great Britain, 1796-1803; defeated candidate for 
vice-president, 1804; again United States senator 1813-25; de- 
feated for governor 1815 and for United States president in 
1816- again minister to Great Britain, 1825-26; died in 
Jamacia, L. I, April 29, 1827. 



1796] 



JOHN JAY 161 



King, United States Senator, had accepted appointment 
as Minister to England, and that a successor should 
therefore be chosen for his vacated seat; whereupon the 
Legislature elected John Lawrence, the local United 
States District Judge, a Federalist and a man of fine 
ability, a close friend of Washington, and Judge Advo- 
cate of the court that tried John Andre. 

The choice of Presidential Electors was especially 
important because of the retirement of Washington and 
the vigorous fight which Jefferson was making to suc- 
ceed him. Jay, who a year before had been regarded 
as a leading candidate of the Federalists, now elim- 
inated himself and gave his influence in favor of John 
Adams, who was undoubtedly the choice of most of the 
Federalists in the eastern and middle States. Hamil- 
ton himself would have preferred Thomas Pinckney, 
of South Carolina, for President, with Adams continued 
in office as Vice-President, and he urged his friends to 
give those candidates an equal number of votes, pre- 
sumably expecting— as was indeed the case — that 
Adams would be scratched by some southern Electors, 
and that thus Pinckney would become President and 
Adams Vice-President. But Pinckney was scratched 
by still more New England Electors, with the result that 
Adams headed the poll as President while Pinckney 
fell behind Jefferson, and the latter was chosen Vice- 
President. The New York Legislature chose, of course, 
twelve Federalists as Electors, and they voted solidly 
for Adams and Pinckney— or for Pinckney and Adams. 
The New York Anti-Federalists would have voted, had 
they been in power, for Jefferson for President and for 



162 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1797 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

George Clinton for Vice-President. Clinton in fact 
received the four votes of Georgia, while Jay received 
four from Connecticut, and Aaron Burr received 13 
from Pennsylvania, 6 from North Carolina, 4 from 
Kentucky, 3 each from Maryland and Tennessee, and 
one from Virginia, a total of 30, which placed him next 
to Jefferson among the Democratic opposition candi- 
dates. 

The Legislature took a recess on November 11, and 
reassembled at Albany on January 3. There the 
Assembly chose a new Council of Appointment, all four 
members of which were Federalists. A law was enacted 
on March 1 1 making Albany the permanent capital of 
the State; providing for a building there for the use of 
the Secretary of State and the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court; requiring the State Treasurer and State Comp- 
troller to maintain their offices there; and requiring the 
Legislature to meet there unless specially adjourned to 
some other place or specially convened elsewhere by the 
Governor. 

Aaron Burr's term as United States Senator expired 
in 1797, and it was incumbent upon this Legislature to 
elect his successor. Of course there was no thought of 
reelecting Burr in so strongly Federalist a Legislature. 
Instead the choice fell without hesitation upon Philip 
Schuyler, who had formerly been defeated by the smart 
trickery of Burr. 

Some gains were made by the Democracy in the 
Congressional elections of December, 1796, when they 
elected four Representatives — in New York, West- 
chester, Suffolk, and Ulster counties, — and these were 



1797-8] JOHN JAY 163 

followed by similar results in the spring elections of 
1797. In New York City all their legislative candi- 
dates were elected by heavy majorities, among them 
being Aaron Burr, who thus changed a national for a 
State Senatorship, and DeWitt Clinton, son of James 
and nephew of George Clinton, who thus for the first 
time entered public office. DeWitt Clinton was a 
staunch member of the party of which his uncle was — 
or had been — the leader, though he accepted and 
supported the Constitution of the United States much 
more cordially than most other members of it, and 
vigorously resented the offensive conduct of the French 
government; so that many Federalists, including Ham- 
ilton himself, expected to see him some day affiliated 
with their party. 

This twenty-first Legislature met at Albany on Jan- 
uary 2, 1798, and Derrick Ten Eyck was chosen 
Speaker of the Assembly by a vote of 59 to 42, which 
probably pretty exactly represented the respective party 
strengths. The Governor confined his address to the 
State interests that seemed to require immediate 
attention of the Legislature, and scrupulously avoided 
anything that might have seemed to savor of party 
politics. The session was, however, marked with a 
number of exceptionally interesting transactions. The 
question was raised whether it was permissible for a 
member of the Legislature to hold at the same time 
another State office, Samuel Jones, a Senator, having 
been made Comptroller. A resolution was introduced 
into the Senate declaring that by acceptance of the latter 
office he had vacated his seat in the Senate, but after 



164 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1798 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

much discussion it was rejected by a large majority, 
probably more because of unwillingness to dismiss from 
the Senate so eminent and useful a member as Mr. 
Jones than through belief in the propriety of dual office- 
holding. 

At the beginning of the session a communication was 
received from Philip Schuyler, asking permission to 
resign his seat in the United States Senate, an inter- 
esting reminder of the punctilious sense of duty and of 
courtesy which at that time widely — though not uni- 
versally — prevailed. Schuyler was at this time only 
sixty-five years old, but he had from early youth led a 
life of extraordinary exertion and achievement. He had 
been a highly efficient commander in two great wars ; he 
had been a legislator for many years; he had been a 
pioneer in public works of unsurpassed difficulty and 
importance; he had been made the victim of monstrous 
public injustice and ingratitude; and his health was 
seriously impaired by his arduous and little-requited 
labors for the public good. Yet he could not retire 
from the cares and duties of office without asking and 
securing the permission of the authority that had 
appointed him to it. 

The Legislature regretfully accorded Schuyler the 
privilege of resigning, and elected in his place John 
Sloss Hobart, who was at that time an Associate-Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the State; a man of fine 
scholarship, keen wit, high integrity, and patriotism, 
who accepted the appointment in a manner as excep- 
tional as his predecessor's relinquishment of it. He 
wrote a letter to the Legislature setting forth that he 



1798] 



JOHN JAY 165 



had not been "bred to the profession of the law," yet 
had been made a Justice of the Supreme Court at its 
organization and had held the place for twenty years, 
that his salary had been insufficient for the wants of his 
family, in consequence of which he had endeavored to 
eke out a competence by farming, but was unable to pay 
for the farm which he had purchased; and that he felt 
the Legislature of his own State "would not suffer an 
old servant to drink of the bitter cup of poverty and 
distress in the evening of his life." There was, unhap- 
pily, only too much cause for this piteous complaint, 
nor was Hobart the only faithful servant of the State 
who was denied adequate remuneration; and it is a 
melancholy fact to record that even this letter, and the 
strong appeal of the Governor hitherto mentioned, 
failed to move the Legislature to suitable action. There 
had been, indeed, provision made by the Nineteenth 
Legislature for the increase of judicial salaries, but it 
does not appear to have become sufficiently effective to 
save men like Hobart from real distress. After a man 
had served for many years on a salary insufficient to 
support his family in even the most modest style, a year 
or two of increase to a sum just sufficient for such sup- 
port could neither discharge the deficits of the past nor 
provide for the impending period of retirement when 
even that poor stipend would cease. 

Hobart was intellectually well fitted to fill a place in 
the Senate, perhaps better than that upon the bench. 
But three months after his appointment he resigned, 
driven to that course by pecuniary need. As his resig- 
nation was received after the adjournment of the Legis- 



166 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1798 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

lature, Jay made an interim appointment, selecting as 
Hobart's successor General William North of Duanes- 
burg, a gallant soldier who had served with distinction 
throughout the war from Quebec to Yorktown and had 
been the closest friend and aid of Steuben. North 
served for ten months, until the Legislature elected 
James Watson to his place — another competent if not 
brilliant Revolutionary officer and, like North, a stal- 
wart Federalist. To anticipate the record it may be 
added here that Watson in turn resigned the Senator- 
ship and was succeeded by the distinguished Gouver- 
neur Morris. 

When Hobart left the bench for the Senate, Chief- 
Justice Yates also retired because of expiration of his 
term. Like Hobart, he was doomed to poverty and 
died heavily burdened with debts, which the State per- 
mitted his family laboriously to discharge. These two 
vacancies led to a reorganization of the bench which 
marked a new era in the history of the court. John 
Lansing, Jr., a man of excellent ability and long experi- 
ence, was made Chief-Justice. To the Associate-Justice- 
ship Jay appointed a young man who had already made 
a great mark in the legal and also the political world, 
and who was destined soon to rank among the foremost 
jurists of the world in any land or age. This was James 
Kent, of whom nothing more need be said than the 
mention of his illustrious name. In August, 1798, John 
Codine was appointed as a fourth Associate-Justice; he 
died a few weeks later and was succeeded in December 
by Jacob Radcliff, one of the foremost chancery lawyers 
of his time. 



1798] 



JOHN JAY 167 



During this session of the Legislature Robert 
McClellan was appointed State Treasurer; afterward 
he became a defaulter. The office of Secretary of 
State became vacant through the death of the 
incumbent, Mr. Scott, and over the filling of the place 
there arose a strenuous contest which was notable for 
the fact that it was one of the very rare occasions when 
Jay was in the wrong. Joseph White, a member of the 
Council of Appointment, urged the selection of Major 
Daniel Hale, of Albany, and prevailed upon his col- 
leagues to support him. But Jay was for some 
unexplained reason strongly opposed to him and for 
a time refused to nominate him. Several other candi- 
dates were successively proposed by Jay, but the 
Council refused them all, at the same time insisting that 
the Governor, as president of the Council, must make 
the appointment. In the end Jay yielded and under 
protest named Hale, who was promptly confirmed by 
the Council. Hale proved to be an excellent officer, 
and Jay, with characteristic frankness and honor, soon 
wrote to both Hale and White his admission that he 
had been wrong in opposing the appointment. 

The Legislature on April 3 passed the first law of 
New York forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors 
on Sunday, and three days later it adjourned without 
day in the midst of a vigorous and animated political 
campaign. 

Governor Jay's term of office was approaching its 
close. His administration had been notably pure, 
industrious, and useful. It had been marked with a 
finely conciliatory spirit in party politics, with a vast 



168 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1798 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

amount of constructive legislation, and with a great 
advance and uplifting of the general standard of public 
service. It was distinctively the administration not 
only of one of the purest and most unselfish of patriots 
but also of one in whom the politician was lost in the 
very highest type of statesman. Never did any Gover- 
nor more richly deserved undisputed reelection, and 
never was such a course more clearly prescribed by the 
public welfare. Yet such was not to be the case. He 
was opposed in the campaign by a candidate who was 
one of the few public men in the State worthy to be 
ranked with or near him in character and ability. 
r -* : "A largely attended meeting of the Federalist leaders 
/from all parts of the State was held on March 6, 1798, 
/ at which it was unhesitatingly agreed to put forward 
/ both Jay and Van Rensselaer for reelection. A few 
V days later Robert R. Livingston, Chancellor of the 
State, announced himself as an opposing candidate, and 
was thereupon made the standard-bearer of the party 
of the Democracy. This was a surprise to the State, and 
a particularly unpleasant surprise to Jay on personal 
grounds. Livingston was Mrs. Jay's cousin. The two 
men had been close life-long friends, law partners, and 
colleagues in Congress, in the organization of the State 
government, and in the ratification of the Federal Con- 
stitution. They had worked together for the defeat of 
Clinton at the Poughkeepsie Convention at which the 
Constitution was ratified. But, as we have already 
seen, Livingston was bitterly disappointed at being 
passed over in favor of Jay when the first Chief-Justice 
of the United States Supreme Court was named, and he 



1798] JOHN JAY 169 

visited his resentment upon Jay himself as well as 
Hamilton. Jay's treaty with Great Britain gave him 
fresh opportunity for hostility. He raged against it in 
print; he joined Aaron Burr in denouncing it and 
denouncing Jay personally from the platform; he par- 
ticipated in the burning of the treaty before Jay's house, 
while his brother, Brockholst Livingston, joined in 
throwing brickbats at Hamilton and in burning John 
Jay in effigy. Now, in the midst of our undeclared war 
with France, and when the French government was 
acting in the most scandalous manner toward America, 
Livingston surpassed even Jefferson and Monroe in his 
pro-Gallican passion. 

Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? For withal Liv- 
ingston was the possessor of a well-nigh celestial mind. 
In intellectual versatility and opulence of power, in 
social graces and personal charm, in public and private 
dignity, in a certain spiritual exaltation that illumined 
his physical being with lustre, he was deservedly con- 
spicuous even in an age in which were clustered many 
of the greatest men in American history. Nor was there 
one of loftier integrity or more efficient devotion to the 
public service. Yet because of the unworthy motives 
which we have defined, and particularly because of the 
two most unworthy — personal animosity, and partisan- 
ship for the alien land that was then our foe — he 
elected to oppose Jay's reelection. We can imagine the 
sardonic humor with which George Clinton in his tem- 
porary retirement regarded this conflict between the 
two men who had inflicted upon him the first great 
defeat of his career! 



170 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1798 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Jay did not shrink from the contest. It was unspeak- 
ably painful to him to be opposed by one who for so 
long had stood so close to him, and on personal consid- 
erations he would gladly have retired. But on the 
ground of Americanism against Gallicism, of sustaining 
the American government against the obsession of the 
French frenzy, there could be no compromise and no 
retreat. "The indignities which France was heaping 
upon his country," says his son and biographer, "and 
the probability that they would soon lead to war, for- 
bade him to consult his personal gratification." More- 
over, Jay doubtless recognized in Livingston's can- 
didacy a bid for the Presidency two years later, and 
while in most respects the Chancellor would have been 
a worthy Chief Magistrate, it would have been most 
ominous to elect to that office a man capable of per- 
mitting alien partisanship to influence his course in 
domestic affairs. To oppose Livingston, therefore, 
both as an actual candidate for the Governorship and as 
a prospective candidate for the Presidency, was Jay's 
plain duty. 

Livingston was confident of success. The gains 
which the Democracy had made in legislative elections 
persuaded him that the tide was rising strongly in their 
favor. Aristocrat though he was himself, too, he 
counted upon a revolt of the people against the "court" 
that Washington had maintained at the capital and that 
Adams was continuing, and against the making of a 
treaty with monarchical England rather than with 
republican France. In this he was mistaken. 



1798] JOHN JAY 171 

He did not realize the force of the patriotic sentiment 
that was rising throughout New York as elsewhere 
against the insulting aggressions of the French Direc- 
tory. Even Adams's publication of the proofs of 
Talleyrand's attempt to blackmail the United States into 
paying him a bribe and France a tribute, under threat 
of ravaging our coast with French frigates, did not open 
the ambition-blinded eyes ; nor did the national response 
to Pinckney's ringing "Millions for defense, but not a 
cent for tribute" penetrate his deafened ears. 

The result was inevitable. Congress created a Navy 
department and ordered the building of a navy, the 
army was mobilized and Washington was recalled from 
his retirement to command it, "Hail, Columbia!" 
became the national war-song, and the whole nation rose 
in support of its rights and honor. In the midst of such 
doings, the New York election was held. Jay received 
16,012 votes and Livington 13,632. The disappointment 
to Livingston was intense and it embittered the remain- 
der of his life, though there were still reserved for his 
achievement perhaps the greatest two public services 
of his useful and distinguished career, in the Louisiana 
Purchase and the development of steam navigation. 
But with his crushing defeat at the hands of Jay his 
influence in the politics and upon the destinies of New 
York was ended. 



CHAPTER IX 
JAY'S SECOND TERM 

IT was inevitable that in 1798 national and inter- 
national affairs should dominate all others. It was 
indeed appropriate that it should be so. In its 
relations with France the young republic was passing 
through the most crucial vicissitudes it had known since 
the Revolution. A state of war actually existed; there 
was ample provocation on the American side for a 
formal declaration of it; and the result of the Pinckney- 
Marshall-Gerry mission to France, in which the 
grossest of insults had been added to intolerable injury, 
made it seem certain that such a declaration would 
speedily ensue. One man alone prevented it, and he did 
so because he knew that in the then defenseless condi- 
tion of the seaboard cities such a war, whatever its 
ultimate result, would at first be unspeakably disastrous 
to America. That was before Trafalgar. It was before 
the Nile. France had still a powerful navy, only a little 
surpassed by that of England, and with it she could have 
ravaged New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and the 
whole coast. 

Adams was not for peace at any price. Indeed, that 
passionate patriot was the very antithesis of a pacifist. 
He would have gloried with avidity and zeal in taking 
up arms for the protection and vindication of American 
rights. But — like other members of his illustrious 

172 



1798] JAY'S SECOND TERM 173 

family — if he had a heart of fire, he had a brain of ice. 
Nobody could be more irascible and impetuous ; nobody 
could be at the same time more cool and calculating or 
exercise more inexorable self-control. Certainly nobody 
could be more unselfish and self-immolatory. So, at the 
conscious cost of his whole political future, the great 
President stood like a wall of adamant between his 
unready country and a disastrous war. In this he did 
not mollify his pro-Gallican enemies, who with 
astounding inconsistency continued to denounce him as 
pro-English, which was the very last thing John Adams 
could ever have been. On the other hand, he alienated 
a large faction of his own party, including Hamilton, 
who would have entered the war relying upon English 
aid. But Adams wisely distrusted any such reliance, 
knowing well that nothing could at that time suit 
England's book better than to have the United States 
suffer disaster and be severely checked in the marvelous 
progress which it was making toward domination of the 
western hemisphere. 

In his noble course, which happily was successful for 
the nation though ruinous politically to himself, 
Adams was cordially supported by Jay, who was much 
more loyally attached to him than was Hamilton, and 
who indeed was in diplomacy and foreign relations 
generally a wiser counsellor and more prescient states- 
man than the latter. As New York, through her com- 
merce, was suffering most from the misconduct of 
France, and because of her exposed and undefended 
condition would suffer most in case of open war, the 
crisis was of supreme interest in this State, and it was 






174 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1798 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

natural and fitting that Jay, soon after his reelection, 
should call the Legislature together in special session, 
partly to arouse and consolidate sentiment in support 
of the President, and partly to take specific measures of 
preparation for possible contingencies. 

He accordingly, on July 2, 1798, issued a proclama- 
tion summoning the Twenty-second Legislature to meet 
at Albany on August 9 — just a week after that crushing 
disaster of the Nile which made France far less inclined 
than she had been to push hostilities against America 
to the extreme. In his opening address he gave the 
threatening state of national relations with France as 
the reason for convoking the Legislature, and he dwelt 
briefly but with admirable clarity and discretion upon 
the existing situation and the train of events and 
negotiations that had led to it. The whole business, 
he said, belonged to the national government. Yet 
there was a question to what extent the safety and essen- 
tial interests of the State of New York required 
auxiliary and correspondent measures to be taken on 
her part, and it was one which should be considered and 
answered by the Legislature rather than by the Gov- 
ernor. He urged no policy of his own, but asked the 
Legislature to consider carefully the need of defenses 
for the State's one great ocean port, the need of arsenals, 
and the need of revision of the Militia law. Much 
expense might be involved, but when security was 
at stake the expense of providing it was a secondary 
consideration. 

To meet such expense, and indeed to pay the existing 
debts of the State, he earnestly advised a revision of the 



1798] JAY'S SECOND TERM 175 

tax laws which would compel all citizens to bear their 
just shares of the public burden. "Too many of our 
citizens," he said, "seem to have inadvertently flattered 
themselves that, unlike all other people past and present, 
they were to live exempt from taxes." Because of that 
error the State was in debt and was paying interest on 
loans which should not have been made, but should 
have been obviated by raising the money by taxation. 
He added the pertinent reflection that citizens ought not 
to object to taxation levied by the Legislature, since "all 
the officers of the government, and every member of the 
Legislature, must partake in its inconvenience." Jay 
himself was, it should be recalled, a very large taxpayer, 
and was thus advocating an increase of his own burden. 
The sequel to his wise counsel was the enactment, on 
April 1, 1799, of a general Tax law. Meanwhile, on 
August 27, 1798, the Legislature appropriated $150,000 
for the fortification of New York City, and $165,000 for 
arsenals, arms, and military stores. 

There was in Jay's admirable address nothing that 
could be regarded as partisan, unless in a single sentence 
of warning against partisanship. Referring to the 
imminent danger of war, he said : "The United States 
cannot be conquered but by civil discord under foreign 
direction; and it is useful to recollect that to this cause 
all fallen republics have owed their destruction." His 
utterances had in gratifying measure the effect for 
which they were designed. That was not to inflame 
passions against France, but to strengthen loyal support 
of the President; not to exacerbate partisan animosities, 
but to allay them and to unite all parties in that unity 



176 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1799 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

which should prevail in respect to external relations. 
In consequence, no partisan strife arose in that session 
of the Legislature. 

The only party division was over the election of a 
United States Senator to succeed General North, who 
had been appointed ad interim in place of Mr. Hobart, 
resigned. The Legislature elected James Watson by 
fifty-seven votes over John Tayler, who received forty- 
eight. These figures represented the respective strengths 
of the two parties in that Legislature. On August 27 an 
adjournment was voted to January 2, 1799. The meet- 
ing actually began on January 3. 

In this second meeting of the Twenty-second Legisla- 
ture, the floodgates of partisanship were opened. First 
the Assembly elected a new Council of Appointment, 
consisting of three Federalists and one of the opposition, 
the last named being necessarily chosen because there 
was no Federalist Senator from the Southern district. 
Next a resolution was introduced for the division of the 
State into districts for the election of Presidential 
Electors and also into Senatorial districts from each of 
which one State Senator should be chosen — as at the 
present time. This was really a scheme of the Democ- 
racy, that party hoping thus in the Presidential con- 
test of 1800 to secure some Electors from the districts in 
the southern part of the State, which they would have 
little chance of doing if all were chosen on a general 
State ticket. Despite the Federalist majority in the 
Assembly, the measure passed that house by a vote of 
55 to 40, because of the action of a number of nominal 
Federalists who were much under the influence of 




Aaron Burr 

Aaron Burr, U. S. senator; born in Newark, N. J., February 
6, 1756; studied theology, but abandoned it for law; dis- 
tinguished himself in many battles of the revolution; member 
of the legislature, 1784, 1798, 1800; attorney general, 1789-90; 
U. S. senator, 1791-97; president of state constitutional con- 
vention, 1.801; tied Jefferson in presidential election of 1800; 
house of representatives declared Jefferson elected president 
and Burr vice-president; challenged and mortally wounded 
Alexander Hamilton in a duel at Weehawken, N. J., Julv 11, 
1804; coroner's jury returned a verdict of murder; escaped 
to South Carolina; returned to Washington and completed 
term as vice-president; arrested and tried for treason in 
August, 1807 for attempting to form a republic in the south- 
west of which he was to be head, but was acquitted ; went 
abroad in 1808; returned to New York City in 1812; died in 
Port Richmond, S. I., September 14, 1836. 



1799 ] JAY'S SECOND TERM 177 

Aaron Burr and were led by him on this and some other 
matters to desert their party. The measure was, how- 
ever, rejected by the Senate. 

The Governor reported to the Legislature certain 
amendments to the Federal Constitution which were 
proposed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, cal- 
culated to restrict the citizenship privileges of aliens. 
These were discussed at much length in the Assembly, 
on partisan lines, the Federalists favoring and the 
opposition disapproving them, and they were finally 
rejected by a vote of 38 for and 62 against them; this 
result being achieved, as was that on the districting 
proposal, through the influence of Burr, who was at this 
time a member of the Assembly and though nominally 
independent was in fact a leader of the Democracy. 

Next came the great fight of the session. The Gov- 
ernor reported to the Legislature the famous Virginia 
and Kentucky resolutions, directed against the Alien 
and Sedition laws. There can be no question that those 
laws were extreme and were susceptible of intolerable 
abuse; though neither can there be any question that 
their purpose was laudable, for the suppression of 
treasonable intrigues which were threatening the 
integrity and life of the nation. On the other hand, the 
resolutions were no less extreme, and were calculated to 
impair the integrity of the national government. The 
Virginia resolutions, drafted by James Madison and 
adopted by the Virginia Legislature, denounced the 
laws as "palpable and alarming infractions of the Con- 
stitution" ; a declaration which had its chief force in the 
fact that Madison had been, comparably with Ham- 



178 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1799 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ilton, a chief author of the Constitution and was there- 
fore well qualified to interpret it, though in making this 
declaration he was probably much under the influence 
of Jefferson. The Kentucky resolutions, which were 
drafted by Jefferson himself, were still more radical, 
declaring the laws to be "not law, but altogether void 
and of no force." 

In making that astounding declaration Jefferson 
overreached himself. Without it, some resolutions 
disapproving the Alien and Sedition laws might have 
passed the Legislatures of New York and other 
northern States. But Jefferson's dictum was flat nulli- 
fication. More than that, it was palpably unreasonable 
for a State Legislature to sit in judgment upon an act of 
the national Congress. The leaders of the Democracy 
themselves afterward were most vehement in trying to 
deny the right and power of the Supreme Court of the 
United States to reject acts of Congress as unconsti- 
tutional. Certainly there was far more cause to deny 
such right and power to a State Legislature. 

The debate at Albany over these resolutions was by 
far the greatest political battle that had thus far been 
waged in the New York Legislature. In the Assembly 
it was largely directed by Burr on the side of the 
Democracy, though the real protagonist was one of 
Burr's proteges, a younger but far abler man. This was 
Erastus Root, formerly of Connecticut. He was only 
twenty-six years old; he had formerly been chiefly 
known as a champion athlete; and in politics he had 
been regarded as an irresponsible enfant terrible. But in 
a day he placed himself in the very forefront of New 



17991 JAY'S SECOND TERM 179 

York political leaders as a tribune of the people and the 
spokesman of advanced democracy. In brilliancy of 
oratory and keen and cogent logic he far surpassed 
Burr, if not all of his colleagues at Albany. He con- 
tended with all the force of his magnetic and masterful 
personality for the right of the people, through their 
representatives in State Legislatures, to express their 
opinion of any act of Congress. In that he was doubtless 
right, and had that been the only point at issue he would 
probably have won the day and secured New York's 
approval of the resolutions. But that was not all. The 
resolutions contained Jefferson's declaration in favor 
of State nullification, at will, of acts of Congress, and 
though those specific clauses were in the course of the 
controversy stricken out, the spirit of them remained. 
This was something which Mr. Root did not venture to 
defend. He therefore altogether ignored it. Doubtless 
he did not himself approve it. At any rate, years after- 
ward, when the same principle was again put forward 
in South Carolina by John C. Calhoun, he was one of 
the very foremost and most vehement in opposing and 
condemning it. 

In the Senate the advocacy of the resolutions was led 
by Ambrose Spencer, a Senator from the Middle dis- 
trict, and thitherto one of the most zealous Federalists, 
who now deserted that party and cast in his lot with 
the Democracy. He was charged by his former asso- 
ciates with doing this through disappointment and 
resentment at not being appointed Comptroller of the 
State, a charge which he indignantly denied, declaring 
that he had announced his change of views long before 



180 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1799 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the appointment of Mr. Jones as Comptroller, and 
indeed before his own reelection that year to the Senate. 
Nevertheless it was a matter of record that he criticized 
the appointment of Mr. Jones with undisguised per- 
sonal bitterness, and moved for having his seat declared 
vacant in the Senate because of his acceptance of the 
Comptrollership. It must be remembered, too, that 
Spencer was related to Chancellor Livingston, and it is 
not unreasonable or unjust to assume that he was to 
some extent influenced by him in his political course. 
He was at that time only thirty-three years old, but had 
already served as an Assistant-Attorney-General of the 
State, a State Senator, and a member of the Council of 
Appointment, and had long been a close friend and 
adviser of both Jay and Hamilton. 

The Federalists introduced into each house resolu- 
tions declaring that they could not perceive that the 
rights of the States had been violated by the Alien and 
Sedition laws, or that any unconstitutional powers had 
been assumed by the national government; expressing 
"anxiety and regret" at the "inflammatory and per- 
nicious sentiments and doctrines" which were contained 
in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, "sentiments 
and doctrines no less repugnant to the Constitution of 
the United States and the principles of their Union 
than destructive to the Federal government and unjust 
to those whom the people have elected to administer 
it"; bearing "unequivocal testimony against such senti- 
ments and doctrines"; and proclaiming it an indispen- 
sable duty to declare their incompetence, as a branch of 
the Legislature of the State, to supervise the acts of the 



1799] 



JAY'S SECOND TERM 181 



general government. These resolutions were adopted 
in the Assembly by a vote of fifty to forty-three, and in 
the Senate by a much larger majority, there being only 
seven votes against them. 

It may be added that the Senate and Assembly 
adopted resolutions respecting the President's French 
policy instinct with fine patriotism, which evoked from 
Mr. Adams an appreciative and grateful response, in 
which he remarked that they were the more welcome to 
him because transmitted by a man for whom he had the 
warm and affectionate regard that he had for John Jay. 
Later, however, when Adams appointed Vans Murray 
to be Minister to France and thus renewed diplomatic 
relations with that country, the Assembly refused to 
adopt an address of thanks to him which was moved by 
Mr. Swartwout. This refusal was not at all to Jay's 
liking and was contrary to his judgment as a piece of 
political tactics, but it was dictated by Hamilton, who 
controlled a considerable following in the Legislature 
and who had decided to break entirely with Adams. 
After this strenuous political session the Legislature 
rejected a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery, and 
also one for the abolition of imprisonment for debt 
arising from contract; it passed a bill for "supplying 
the city of New York with pure and wholesome water," 
which was really a bill for chartering the Manhattan 
Banking Company, in the interest of Burr and his 
friends; and on April 3 it adjourned without day. 

Later in that month occurred the annual election for 
members of the Assembly, in which, contrary to antici- 
pation, the Federalists made marked gains. These were 



182 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1799 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

especially noteworthy in New York City, which had for 
two years preceding been solidly for the opposition 
party, but now went Federalist by an overwhelming 
majority. This was not so much in spite of as because 
of the fact that Burr himself again headed the opposi- 
tion ticket. The people had discovered the deceptive 
character of the water bill which Burr had manoeuvered 
through the Legislature under false pretenses. The 
majority of the Legislature and the public had supposed 
it to be what it purported to be, a measure for supplying 
the city with water. It did indeed provide for that, in 
a very inadequate fashion, but its real intent was to 
charter a bank which would not only enrich Burr and 
his friends but could also be used as a powerful political 
machine. The anger of the people at the exposure of 
this characteristic duplicity of Burr resulted in that 
trickster's crushing defeat at the polls. In Columbia 
county the Federalists also made gains, but elsewhere 
the drift was against them. 

A wise and temperate use of the advantages thus 
gained might have assured to the Federalists a perma- 
nent, or at least a protracted, lease of power. This 
would doubtless have been the case had the counsels of 
Jay prevailed. But it was not to be. Various Federalist 
leaders and officials throughout the State, devoid of his 
judicial temperament, discerning vision, and concilia- 
tory inclinations, ignored the obvious fact that the 
victory at the polls in April had been won not because 
of but in spite of the Alien and Sedition laws, and 
chiefly because of the exposure of Burr's duplicity and 
"graft," and interpreted the result as a popular ratifica- 



1799] 



JAY'S SECOND TERM 183 



tion of the laws in question and a mandate for their 
unrelenting application. Accordingly a campaign was 
begun which in some cases amounted to nothing short of 
oppressive persecution. 

One of the most extreme cases was that of Jedediah 
Peck, Judge of Otsego county, a man of peculiar and 
in some respects insignificant personality, but of high 
integrity, benevolence, and public spirit. It was he who 
had moved for the abolition of imprisonment for 
contract debts, and he was also one of the most efficient 
advocates of the development of an adequate system of 
free public instruction. General John Armstrong had 
written an appeal to Congress for the repeal of the Alien 
and Sedition laws, couched in language which was 
bitter and even savage to an extreme degree. His 
authorship of it was kept secret, but the petition was 
widely circulated, ostensibly for the purpose of securing 
signatures to be presented to Congress, but of course 
really for the purpose of political propaganda. Its 
intemperate phrases were intended not for Congress, to 
which indeed they would have been more offensive than 
appealing, but for the general public, and especially for 
that part of the public that was most readily moved 
by passion. It was not an admirable document, but it 
was certainly not libelous or seditious in any reasonable 
sense. 

Armstrong sent copies of this document to Judge 
Peck, and that gentleman distributed them to his neigh- 
bors for their perusal and signature. This came to the 
notice of Judge Cooper, of Cooperstown, who appears 
to have been endowed with a degree of the arbitrary 



184 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1799 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

and contentious spirit that characterized his more 
famous son, the novelist. He brought the matter to the 
attention of the United States District Attorney, Mr. 
Harrison, and demanded that the rigors of the very 
law which he was flouting should immediately be 
visited upon Judge Peck. Whether through weak com- 
pliance with Judge Cooper's impassioned demand, or 
because of a kindred spirit of zeal against the Democ- 
racy, Mr. Harrison promptly adopted the course 
suggested. He laid the case before the Federal grand 
jury and demanded an indictment of Judge Peck under 
the Sedition law. This was granted, and a bench 
warrant was issued for the arrest of the culprit and his 
transportation to New York City for trial. 

The circumstances of that ill-advised undertaking 
were doubtless much exaggerated by the Democratic 
press. We can scarcely believe that Judge Peck, a 
physically slight and non-belligerent man, was taken 
from his bed at midnight, manacled, and dragged from 
his home. But at least he was arrested by a United 
States Marshal, and was conveyed by him as a prisoner 
from Cooperstown to New York, a distance of two 
hundred miles. It took five days to make the journey, 
which might not unfittingly be described as the funeral 
procession of the Federalists. Scarcely anything could 
more have excited public opinion against the Sedition 
law and against the party that was regarded as 
responsible for it. The facts that there was actual 
sedition to be suppressed, that treasonable conspiracies 
existed, and that Armstrong's alleged "petition" was in 
very bad taste, were quite overlooked. The people saw 



1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 185 

in Jedediah Peck a martyr to free speech, freedom of 
the press, and the right to petition. That exhibition, 
just before the spring election of 1800, was the most 
effective campaign propaganda that Burr could have 
wished. 

The result of that election was a sweeping victory for 
the Democracy, in New York as elsewhere throughout 
the country. The city of New York, ignoring Burr's 
water bill job, turned its Federalist majority of nine 
hundred of the year before into a contrary majority of 
similar proportions. In the Eastern district alone were 
Federalist Senators elected, and the majority of that 
party in the Senate was reduced to seven, while the 
Democracy gained control of the Assembly by a 
majority of 28. The latter party also carried six of the 
ten Congressional districts. It is probable that the local 
victory in New York City was largely due to the 
personality of the candidates of the Democracy, who 
were practically all men of wealth and high standing 
and devoid of political offense. Burr himself discreetly 
kept off the ticket. In his place, the former Governor, 
George Clinton, was placed at the head of the list, thus 
assuring the support of the Clinton clan. Next came 
Brockholst Livingston, one of the ablest and most 
popular members of that family, to rally the Livingston 
clan to the fray. John Swartwout, the closest friend of 
Burr, was put upon the ticket in Orange county, to 
assure the support of all of Burr's partisans. General 
Horatio Gates was nominated, to cater to the former 
soldiers of the Revolution. Other candidates were 
Samuel Osgood, who had been Postmaster-General; 



186 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Henry Rutgers, and John Broome, who was afterward 
Lieutenant-Governor of the State. These candidates 
were chiefly selected by Burr himself, with the greatest 
discretion ever exercised by him in his career as a 
political "boss." The "slate" was arranged by Burr and 
Clinton personally at a secret conference in New York 
City only a week before the election. 

Another incident which undoubtedly added to the 
discomfiture of the Federalists at the spring election of 
1800 was the death of Washington, in December, 1799. 
So long as he lived his name was a tower of strength 
to the Federalists. Only Burr and a few lesser men 
ever ventured to asperse his character, motives, or 
sagacity. Even Jefferson, much as he disliked him and 
disagreed with him, was constrained to treat him with 
respect. And because of unwillingness to seem to 
oppose him, many refrained from the aggressive 
antagonism to the Federalist party which they otherwise 
would have manifested. But after his death that 
restraint was removed. 

The importance of the spring campaign was recog- 
nized on both sides. Presidential Electors were to be 
chosen the following fall, and it was expected that the 
contest would be so close that the twelve votes of New 
York in the Electoral College would determine the 
choice of President. As the Electors in New York were 
then chosen by the Legislature, that party which won 
control of the Legislature in April would probably elect 
the next President of the United States. No wonder 
that Burr, who meant to be President, exercised all his 
extraordinary ingenuity in arranging the ticket and all 



1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 187 

his plausibility in making public appeals to the people 
in those places where he had incurred least odium for 
his Manhattan Bank trickery. For the first time in 
New York he organized a political "machine," with 
ward and district managers, mass-meetings, personal 
canvassing of the lists of voters, and the other methods 
that have since been familiar in campaigns. In fact 
it may truly be said that "machine 1 ' methods in party 
management and in the conduct of electoral campaigns 
date, in New York State, and especially in New York 
City, from Burr's activities in the spring of 1800. 

Nor was Hamilton less active, though in a different 
way. Unfitted for such work as that in which his great 
rival excelled, he addressed himself chiefly to the 
people in a series of campaign addresses which for 
eloquence, logic, and lofty political ideals have not been 
surpassed in any political contest in the State. He did 
not attempt to defend the Alien and Sedition laws, of 
which in fact he never approved. He was too good a 
lawyer to sanction the extreme prosecution of men for 
freedom or even for license of speech, and as an alien 
himself he was opposed to invidious discrimination 
against the foreign-born. He regarded with entire dis- 
favor such proceedings as the prosecution of Judge 
Peck. "Let us not establish a tyranny, 1 ' he wrote. "Let 
us not be cruel or violent." Nevertheless, it was 
impossible for him to escape a large measure of imputed 
though undeserved responsibility for those hated laws 
and the excesses that had been practiced under them. 

Meantime the Twenty-third Legislature met at 
Albany on January 28, 1800, an act of its predecessor 



188 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

on April 6, 1798, having fixed Albany as the place, and 
the last Tuesday of January as the date, of regular 
annual meetings. Jay made a notable address, referring 
with moving eloquence to the nation's loss in the death 
of Washington, and making many recommendations of 
constructive statesmanship of the highest utility. Con- 
spicuous among these was one which must surely have 
been inspired, or at least strengthened, by remembrance 
of Burr's jobbery in the last days of the preceding 
Legislature, but which was certainly pertinent even 
then, and which might well have been urged upon every 
Legislature from that time to the present. That was, 
the desirability of giving public business precedence 
over private matters, and of considering important bills 
early in the session instead of leaving them to be rushed 
through without consideration at the close. "The small 
proportion," he said, "which our important public 
statutes bears to the numerous private ones passed for 
individual or for local and particular purposes, has 
become remarkable. Might not the claims of indi- 
viduals be for the most part heard, examined, and 
ascertained in some mode more easy to them and less 
expensive to the State, than by the Legislature; and 
ought not business of great and general moment to pre- 
cede that of less and limited importance? It has not 
infrequently happened that the earlier part of the 
session has been so far consumed in debates, and in pre- 
paring and passing acts respecting these lesser matters, 
that much interesting public business has been either too 
hastily dispatched toward the conclusion of the session, 
or been entirely relinquished and left unfinished. The 



1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 189 

frequency of acts for private incorporations," he con- 
tinued significantly, "and the difficulty of afterward 
restraining or correcting the evils resulting to the public 
from unforeseen defects in them, lead me to advert to 
the prudence of passing them only under such circum- 
stances of previous publicity and deliberation as may be 
proper to guard against the effect of cursory and inac- 
curate views and impressions." 

Renewed attention was called to the desirability of 
increased measures of military preparedness, and 
special recommendations were made for the mainte- 
nance of the common schools and for the promotion of 
higher education. The Common School law of 1795, 
which was to operate for five years, was renewed by the 
Assembly, but unfortunately the Senate refused to con- 
cur, and the school system was therefore permitted to 
lapse until 1812, when a general law was enacted. 
Union College, however, was assisted in March, 1800, 
with an appropriation of $10,000 and a grant of public 
lands. The Governor recommended discontinuance of 
the system of "annual gratuitous allowances by the 
Legislature to the officers of the executive and judicial 
departments" as calculated to impair the constitutional 
independence of those branches of the government, and 
a bill making a temporary readjustment of judicial 
salaries was thereupon passed. The Council of Revi- 
sion vetoed it because it provided for a mere temporary 
allowance in addition to the fixed salaries of the Chan- 
cellor and Judges, but it was repassed over the veto. 

The Legislature reduced the salary of the Comp- 
troller from $3,000 to $2,500, whereupon Samuel Jones 



190 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

declined reappointment and was succeeded by John V. 
Henry, a member of the Assembly and an eminent law- 
yer. A strong effort was made by the Democratic mem- 
bers, under the lead of Jedediah Peck, to have the State 
divided into electoral districts, from each of which one 
Presidential Elector should be chosen. This was a 
renewal of the attempt that had been made by Burr 
in the preceding Legislature and defeated. John V. 
Henry voiced the Federalist opposition to it on con- 
stitutional grounds, insisting that as the Constitution of 
the United States said "Each State shall appoint" the 
Electors, it was necessary for the State to act in the 
matter as a corporate whole, through the Legislature, 
and not remit the matter to the people; also that each 
Elector must be appointed by the whole State, and not 
be elected by a mere district or part of the State. The 
proposal was rejected by a vote of 47 for it to 57 
against it. 

The resignation of James Watson as United States 
Senator was received, and another great name was 
added to the roll of New York's public servants by the 
election of Gouverneur Morris to succeed him, a choice 
of course particularly pleasing to Jay. The opposing 
candidate was Peter Gansevoort, of Albany, and the 
voting was on strict party lines. 

The death of Washington moved the Legislature to 
commemorate the anniversary of his birth. The session 
was suspended on February 21, and was not resumed 
until February 24, while on February 22 an impressive 
public religious service was held. 






18001 JAY'S SECOND TERM 191 

Finally, on April 8, the Legislature adjourned with- 
out day, but with a provision that its successor should 
meet on the first Tuesday of November following, in 
special session, for the choice of Presidential Electors. 

A month later the spring elections had been held, the 
Federalists were defeated, and it was obvious that the 
new Legislature at its meeting in November would 
choose supporters of the Democracy as Electors, and 
that this would give the Presidency of the United States 
to that party. Hamilton was furious and resorted to 
what we must regard as a most unworthy counsel of 
despair. The twenty-third Legislature had adjourned 
without day, but it was still legally in existence and 
could be reconvened by the Governor. It contained a 
safe Federalist majority. He urged, therefore, that it 
should at once be called together, as it could be at any 
time before July 1, and should pass the very proposal 
which it and also its Federalist predecessor had 
rejected, for dividing the State into electoral districts 
and having the Presidential Electors chosen from them 
by popular vote. He and his followers had opposed 
this before, when they felt sure of securing all the 
Electors through the Legislature, and the Democracy 
had favored it as their only chance for getting some of 
the Electors. Now conditions were about to be 
reversed. In consequence, Hamilton favored the dis- 
tricting plan, which would give the Federalists some of 
the Electors, whom they could not get through the 
Legislature, and the Democracy would doubtless have 



192 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL fisoo 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

opposed it as calculated to deny them the choice of all 
the Electors through the Legislature which they would 
control. 

Never was there a more flagrant and cynical sub- 
version of pretended principle to the exigencies of 
partisan advantage, and it is humiliating to recall that a 
statesman of Hamilton's genius condescended to attempt 
a trick which, as he frankly confessed to Jay, would 
transcend "the ordinary forms of delicacy and 
decorum." In brief, it would be legal, but it would be 
indecent. Hamilton was doubtless so possessed with 
distrust of Jefferson and loathing of Burr, and so con- 
vinced that their accession to power would be mis- 
chievous if not disastrous to the nation, that he reckoned 
even such sharp practice as this permissible. 

But he reckoned without Jay. Such a performance 
was impossible to that chivalrous knight-errant of 
patriotism, sans peur et sans reproche. He refused. It 
has been said that he was insincere, or was governed by 
some unworthy motive; for which aspersion there can 
be no conceivable ground. Jay had already resolved 
to retire from public life at the end of his term as 
Governor, and therefore no political considerations had 
weight with him. Not even Washington was more 
devoted to the welfare of the country. Not even Ham- 
ilton was a more stalwart Federalist, or more pro- 
foundly disapproved the tendencies of the party of 
Jefferson and Burr. But Jay was endowed with a judi- 
cial temperament and above all with a prescience which 
Hamilton with all his surpassing genius never 
possessed, and with a scrupulous sense of honor sur- 




Gouverxeur Morris 

Gouverneur Morris; born in Morrisania, Westchester 
county, January 31, 1752; lawyer; delegate to New York 
provincial congress, 1775; delegate to the continental congress, 
to till vacancy caused by the resignation of his father, Lewis 
Morris, 1777-80; assistant minister of finance, 1781-85; member 
of the convention that framed the constitution of the United 
States, 1787; minister to France, 1792-9+ ; United States senator, 
1800-3; chairman Erie canal commission, 1810-13; died in 
Morrisania, N. Y., November 6, 1816. 




Henry Rutgers 



Henry Rutgers, jurist; born in New York City, October 7, 
1745; served in the revolution; member of the legislature, 1777- 
78, 1784, 1800-1802, 1804-5, 1807-8; regent, 1802; presidential 
elector, 1808, 1816, 1820; president of electoral college, 1816, 
1820; died in New York Citv, February 17, 1830. 



1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 193 

passed by that of no man in American history. He 
could not do a wrong act even in hope that good might 
come of it; and he had faith to believe that America 
would survive any temporary change of political con- 
trol that might occur. So he refused Hamilton's 
desperate plea, endorsing upon his letter the noble 
words: "This is a measure for party purposes, which 
I think it would not become me to adopt." 

By the side of the theft of the Governorship in 1792, 
of which Clinton was the avid beneficiary; by the side 
of the proposal of Hamilton, of which we have just 
spoken; by the side of the habitual practices of Burr, 
which were countenanced by even the best men of his 
party; by the side of the personal pique and tergiversa- 
tion of Chancellor Livingston; beside the unscrupulous 
manipulation of the Council of Appointment some 
years later, which Governor Tompkins approved — by 
the side of these things, in splendid contrast, this 
momentous decision of Jay's deserves everlasting 
remembrance. He knew, as he made it, what the result 
would be; and he had the triumphant faith to believe 
that, whatever regrettable result might come of it, the 
ultimate result of a righteous deed could not be other- 
wise than right. 

It is not necessary here to enter into the tortuous tale 
of political intrigue in which both Hamilton and Burr 
were implicated during that crucial summer and fall 
of 1800, further, at any rate, than it directly concerns 
New York. Hamilton, after his failure to induce Jay 
to call a special session of the expiring Legislature, 
contented himself with publishing, late in October and 



194 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

just before the Presidential Electors were to be chosen, 
a most unjust and regrettable attack upon President 
Adams as unfitted by temperament and talents to be 
President, declaring his course during his term to have 
been "a heterogeneous mass of right and wrong." It 
was at this time practically certain that Adams would 
not be reelected. Had it not been certain, this 
extraordinary course of Hamilton's would have made it 
so, as it did add immeasurably to the demoralization of 
the already moribund Federalist party. 

But if Hamilton was unjust and unfaithful to Adams, 
far more treacherous was Burr to Jefferson. As soon 
as the result of the New York spring election was 
known, and it seemed certain that the Democracy 
would win the Presidency, a Congressional caucus of 
that party was held at Philadelphia, at which it was 
unanimously agreed that Jefferson should be President 
and that the Vice-President should be from New York, 
presumably George Clinton, Robert R. Livingston, or 
Aaron Burr. Albert Gallatin was authorized to com- 
municate with the New York leaders and ascertain their 
views and preferences as to the choice. He did so 
through his friend Commodore Nicholson, who forth- 
with discreetly but diligently canvassed the field. He 
first considered Chancellor Livingston, and found that 
his physical infirmity of deafness was regarded as an 
insuperable barrier to his choice. A deaf Vice- 
President could not preside over the Senate. Next he 
conferred with George Clinton, who at first peremp- 
torily declined the nomination on the grounds of age 
(he was only sixty-one), failing health, and the needs of 



1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 195 

his family. After some discussion and earnest urgings 
by Commodore Nicholson, however, Clinton consented 
to be a candidate if his candidacy should be essential to 
a victory for the Democracy and if it was understood 
that after election he would be at liberty to resign if his 
health and circumstances made it desirable. There can 
be little doubt that in this Clinton was quite sincere; 
though neither can it be doubted that, had his circum- 
stances been more favorable, he would have eagerly 
desired the nomination, not only to gratify his own 
ambition but also to defeat Burr, whom by this time he 
thoroughly distrusted and regarded as not identified 
with the best welfare of the public. 

Commodore Nicholson accordingly decided to report 
to the Philadelphia caucus in favor of Clinton's 
nomination, and there is reason to believe that he 
actually wrote a letter to that effect. But to complete 
his commission he felt it incumbent upon him to call 
on Burr. What passed between them has never been 
disclosed, or what other influences may have been 
brought to bear upon Nicholson by the friends of Burr. 
The result, however, is of record. Nicholson, after 
urging and prevailing upon Clinton to accept the 
nomination, recommended to the caucus the nomination 
of Burr, which was accordingly made. Clinton had 
ample cause to resent this as a slight and treachery to 
him. But whatever he may have felt he was too dis- 
creet and dignified to betray his feelings. He gave to 
the ticket, Jefferson and Burr, loyal and effective 
support. 



196 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

We need not here enter into the details of the intrigues 
and devious manipulations through which Burr strove 
to betray Jefferson and get himself elected to the 
Presidency. As he and Jefferson had each received the 
same number of Electoral votes, it devolved upon the 
House of Representatives to decide which should be 
President and which Vice-President. That vote of the 
House was to be by States, and of the sixteen States the 
delegations of eight were Democratic, six Feder- 
alist, and two equally divided ; and a majority, to wit, 
nine, was necessary for a choice. Burr sought to get 
the Federalist Representatives of New Jersey to vote 
for him. He also got William P. Van Ness, of New 
York, then his closest friend and a politician of great 
shrewdness and influence, to write to Edward Living- 
ston, a Representative from New York, that it was the 
sense of the Democracy of this State that after !a 
few votes in the House Jefferson should be dropped and 
Burr elected President. It is possible that these schemes 
would have been successful had Burr been more open 
and courageous in his candidacy. But he elected to 
pretend aloofness and indifference, and to involve him- 
self in an air of mystery; to practise the equivocation 
and deceit and treachery that were indeed an 
inseparable part of his perverted nature; with the result 
that he not only failed to gain the prize which he 
desired, but also brought upon himself ruinous 
reproach and upon others a reflection of the same 
odium. 

To complete this portion of the narrative it may be 
added that after the contest between Jefferson and Burr 



1801] 



JAY'S SECOND TERM 197 



was thrown into Congress, and the House during dozens 
of ineffective ballots was the scene of riotous and almost 
revolutionary demonstrations, Hamilton rose again to 
the height of his great statesmanship and atoned, so 
far as possible, for his discreditable proposal to Jay for 
a special session of the Legislature. He had sufficient 
influence in the House of Representatives to throw the 
balance of power in favor of either of the two candi- 
dates. They were both his enemies, and he distrusted 
both and considered both dangerous to the integrity of 
the young republic. The choice between them was a 
choice between two evils. If Jefferson were chosen 
President, there could be nothing but antagonism 
between him and Hamilton, and Hamilton would have 
no part in the administration. If Burr were chosen, on 
the other hand, any compromise or bargain would be 
possible, for Burr would have been quite capable of 
putting Hamilton at the head of his cabinet if he had 
conceived it to be to his political advantage to do so. 
There is a reason for suspecting that Burr actually 
sought a compact with Hamilton, under which Hamil- 
ton would have assured Burr's election, Burr would 
have made Hamilton the chief of his cabinet, and the 
two would have organized a new party out of parts of 
both the Federalists and the Democracy. To all such 
considerations, however, Hamilton was adamant. 
Recognizing, despite his dislike and distrust of him, 
Jefferson to be both intellectually and morally the 
immeasurable superior of Burr, he gave his influence 
successfully for his election. Thus he saved the republic 
from the ruin which Burr's election would have 



198 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [igoo 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

brought upon it; and thus he caused an exacerbation of 
Burr's enmity which a little later led to his own death 
at the hand of that assassin. 

Meantime, on November 4, 1800, the Twenty-fourth 
Legislature met at Albany, pursuant to the action of its 
predecessor, for the purpose of choosing Presidential 
Electors. The Governor in his opening address 
referred briefly but most pointedly and judiciously to 
the Presidential contest and to the intensity of political 
feeling. "It is natural," he said, "that the election of 
a first magistrate for the nation should divide even 
patriots into parties; while not intemperate, few public 
inconveniences result from them. But history informs 
us that when such parties being nearly balanced 
become highly inflamed, they often endanger not only 
the tranquillity but also the political existence of 
republics. It is wise to profit by the experience of 
others." 

Continuing his wise endeavors at constructive legisla- 
tion, Jay made a number of important recommenda- 
tions, which were acted upon by the Legislature. 
Among them were elaborate recommendations for 
legislation concerning wills, bequests, and the general 
disposition of estates, resulting in the passage of a 
general act on February 20, 1801 ; for reform of the act 
relating to the incorporation of religious organizations, 
including a suggestion that the salaries of ministers be 
made, under the law of contracts, a personal charge 
against the members of the church corporations, which 






1800] JAY'S SECOND TERM 199 

led to an enactment on March 27, 1 80 1 , but without that 
salary contract provision ; and for radical reforms in the 
tax system, which were effected by an act of April 8, 
1801. 

As the chief author of the State Constitution, it was 
with the best of grace and with peculiar authority that 
Jay recommended the calling of a popular convention 
for the amendment of that instrument; not, however, 
generally, but "for the sole and exclusive purpose of 
ordaining what shall be the number of Senators and 
Representatives at future periods, a»d of fixing the 
limits which it shall at no time hereafter exceed." 
There was obvious need of such regulation of the size 
of the Legislature, and an act in accordance with Jay's 
recommendation was passed on April 6, 1801 ; but it 
also empowered the convention which was to be called 
to determine the true construction of the article of the 
Constitution relating to the powers of the Council of 
Appointment, which had been so greatly in dispute. 
The convention could not strictly be called or ordered 
by the Legislature, however, since the Constitution 
itself, strangely enough, contained no provision for any 
such action or for its own amendment. The action of 
the Legislature took, therefore, the technical form of a 
recommendation to the people of the State that they 
create such a convention, to meet at Albany on the 
second Tuesday of October in the next year; which, as 
we shall hereafter see, was done. 

After hearing the Governor's address, the Legislature 
proceeded to the choice of Presidential Electors. In 
the Senate, Federalists were nominated by a vote of 



200 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [isoo 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

24 to 18. In the Assembly, of which Samuel Osgood 
had been chosen Speaker, Democrats were nominated 
by a vote of 64 to 39. On joint ballot, of course, the 
latter were elected. Next arose the question of electing 
a new Council of Appointment. The existing Council 
was Federalist, but the Assembly was Democratic and 
wanted to have a new Council of that party. The Fed- 
eralists objected to an election at that time, on the 
ground that the existing Council had not yet served out 
its full year's term. Precisely the same issue had arisen 
before, in 1794, when the Federalists insisted upon 
turning out a Council before its term had expired and 
electing a new one, and the Democratic opposition 
objected to it; but in 1800 each party took exactly the 
opposite position from that which it had held in 1794! 
The Democracy had the votes and exercised the power, 
and elected a new Council, consisting of DeWitt Clin- 
ton, Ambrose Spencer, and Robert Roseboom, Demo- 
crats, and John Sanders, Federalist. However, the old 
Council insisted upon continuing to act, and actually 
did so; on January 23, 1801, it appointed Solomon Van 
Rensselaer to be Adjutant-General in place of Colonel 
Van Home, whose health forbade him longer to serve. 
The resignation of John Lawrence as United States 
Senator was received, and John Armstrong was elected 
by an almost unanimous vote to succeed him. This 
unanimity was due, apparently, to three causes. One 
was Armstrong's relation through marriage with the 
Livingstons, which gave him their support and the 
support of Democracy generally. The second was the 
fact that down to a couple of years before he had 



1800] 



JAY'S SECOND TERM 201 



been a strong Federalist, and still commanded the 
personal friendship and attachment of the members of 
that party. The third was his supposed fitness for the 
place as a comprehensive student of national affairs 
and a political writer of exceptional power. It must 
be added, however, that his participation in New York 
State politics was so slight as to be negligible, and that 
the estimate of his abilities much exaggerated. 

This meeting of the Legislature lasted only five days, 
from November 4 to November 8. The only important 
business transacted was the choice of Electors, the 
election of a Senator, and the election of a new Council 
of Appointment — which did not exercise its functions, 
in fact, for more than three months, the call for a 
Constitutional convention not being issued until the 
next meeting, in April. Brief as it was, however, it 
was marked with exceptional partisan activity. The 
Assembly's reply to the Governor's address was full of 
factional spirit and indulged in some pretty direct 
innuendoes at the Governor himself, which Jay 
ignored. Just before adjournment the Democratic 
members held a caucus and agreed upon George 
Clinton as the party candidate for Governor at the next 
spring's election, largely because of resentment at 
Burr's betrayal of him in the Vice-Presidential cam- 
paign, and also because of the rising influence of his 
brilliant nephew, DeWitt Clinton, who had become a 
member of the State Senate and of the Council of 
Appointment. A little later Jeremiah Van Rensselaer 
was nominated for Lieutenant-Governor. 



202 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1800 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

At the same hour the Federalist members of the 
Legislature also held a caucus, which adopted resolu- 
tions strongly approving Jay's administration and 
earnestly urging him to be a candidate for another term. 
But Jay, who in his note of thanks to the Senate for its 
response to his address had that very day foreshadowed 
his retirement from public life, replied with a positive 
declination. He deeply and gratefully appreciated 
their motives and their friendship, but he had years 
before resolved that at this time in his life he would 
retire from public employment. Accordingly at a later 
date Stephen Van Rensselaer was nominated for Gov- 
ernor and James Watson for Lieutenant-Governor. 



CHAPTER X 
THE SPOILS SYSTEM 

IT was the irony of fate that the close of Jay's admin- 
istration should be marked and marred by an 
acrimonious controversy over the interpretation of 
the Constitution which he himself had drafted, and by 
the triumph of a principle that was peculiarly 
distasteful and indeed detestable to him. Jay was a 
partisan, no doubt, in the same sense that Washington 
was. He was strongly devoted to certain principles and 
policies of government; the more strongly because his 
policies and practices were invariably based upon prin- 
ciple, instead of his principles being determined by 
considerations of policy. But he was the last man to 
make any mere political shibboleth the test of public 
service, or to make office the spoils of victory at the 
polls. Yet before his administration ended he was 
compelled to witness the establishment of a spoils 
system in the government of New York which for many 
years surpassed in sordid despotism any similar regime 
in any other State of the American Union, and which 
had its origin in that very Council of Appointment 
that he had devised as a barrier against such practices. 
Reference has already been made to the several con- 
troversies which had arisen concerning the powers of 
the Council. The chief question at issue was whether 
the Governor had the sole privilege of nomination and 

203 



204 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Council merely the power of confirmation or 
rejection, or all members of the Council had equal right 
with the Governor of nomination. Unfortunately, this 
had, by all but Jay himself, been regarded not as a 
question of constitutional principle but as one of 
temporary party expediency, each of the two parties 
taking each of the two sides of it in turn, for the sheer 
sake of political advantage. At the regular session of 
the Twenty-fourth Legislature, in the early part of 1 80 1 , 
Jay deemed it desirable, as it certainly was, that the 
question should be authoritatively and permanently 
decided. Accordingly on February 26 he addressed a 
message to the Assembly — that body being vested with 
the power of electing the Council of Appointment, — 
repeating his former recommendation that such a 
decision be sought. 

With admirable modesty he refrained from any 
attempt to impose his own interpretation of the Consti- 
tution upon the Assembly, despite his obvious authority 
as the author of that instrument. He observed that 
defects and obscurities had been found in the Constitu- 
tion of New York, as in the Constitutions of most other 
States, and that it was desirable that these should be 
corrected. When he became Governor it had been his 
official duty to form as correct a judgment as he could 
concerning the interpretation of the article in dispute, 
and after much deliberation he had become fixed in the 
opinion that it vested the right of nomination exclu- 
sively in the Governor. He had found, on conferring 
with his predecessor in the Governorship, that he also 
had held that view and had always claimed that right 



1801] 



THE SPOILS SYSTEM 205 



and had never yielded or conceded it to the Council. 
Nevertheless, as members of a former Council had 
adopted a different construction of that article, and as 
it was evidently a question on which upright and judi- 
cious men might differ, he had in his first address to the 
Legislature suggested the advisability of its making a 
declaratory act upon the subject. This the Legislature 
had not done. There had therefore been nothing for 
him to do but to continue the course upon which he had 
deliberately decided, and which his predecessor had 
invariably pursued. 

This course had, however, led to difficulties. Two 
days before, on February 24, the Council had negatived 
his appointments of a number of Sheriffs, though it had 
confirmed certain other appointments. On one nomina- 
tion three members of the Council had refused to vote 
at all, and then one of those members had himself, in 
controversion of the Governor's right, made a 
nomination for the office under consideration. Judging 
it prudent to consider maturely what ought to be his 
conduct in such circumstances, the Governor thereupon 
had adjourned the Council. (It may be added that he 
never again called it together. ) He was not, he told the 
Assembly, surprised that the Council should claim, as 
indeed it had formerly done, concurrent right and 
power of nomination; but that a majority of its mem- 
bers should refuse to vote at all upon a nomination of 
the Governor, and then, while that nomination 
remained thus not disposed of, should nominate another 
person for the same office, appeared to him "not a little 
extraordinary." Many appointments exceedingly inter- 



206 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

esting to the public needed soon to be made, but while 
the majority of the Council persisted in the course 
which it had adopted, it would be impossible for the 
Governor to make them. He was convinced that he 
could not concede to the members of the Council the 
powers which some of them claimed without violating 
his oath to administer the government to the best of his 
knowledge in conformity with the powers delegated to 
him by the Constitution. Therefore he submitted to 
the Assembly consideration of the question whether it 
had not become indispensable that the merits of these 
opposite and interfering claims to the right of nomina- 
tion should be ascertained and decided without delay. 

At the same time Jay addressed a similar statement 
of facts to the Chancellor and Justices of the Supreme 
Court, requesting their opinions, which they unani- 
mously declined to give on the ground that such 
expression of opinion was not within the scope of their 
judicial duties. 

The Assembly on the following day adopted a 
resolution declaring it to be its sense that it had no 
authority to interpose between the Governor and the 
Council of Appointment, or to pass a determining act 
concerning the powers of the Council. A few days later 
the Assembly refused to concur in a resolution of the 
Senate calling for the appointment of a joint committee 
of the two houses to investigate, consider, and report 
upon the matter, "with their opinion of a fit and proper 
mode of determining the constitutional question." 

The next step was taken by the Council itself, or by 
the three members in opposition to the Governor. These 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 207 

were Robert Roseboom, Ambrose Spencer, and DeWitt 
Clinton, the last named being the dominant member. 
They addressed a communication to the Assembly, 
representing that there were numerous appointive 
offices needing to be filled; that the interests of the 
State would suffer if they were not filled; that the Gov- 
ernor had not called the Council together for the pur- 
pose of filling them; and that therefore they, the three 
members of the Council, felt it incumbent upon them 
to explain the reasons for their conduct. There fol- 
lowed a long and detailed account of the controversies 
between these three members and the Governor at the 
late meetings of the Council, in which the attempt was 
made to show, and indeed the explicit charge was made, 
that the Governor had been trying to "play politics" by 
filling offices with his own partisans regardless of 
fitness. This was supplemented with a still longer and 
more elaborate legal argument against the Governor's 
exclusive right of nomination, and urging that that 
power was "exclusively entrusted to the Council," the 
Governor having nothing to say excepting to cast the 
deciding vote in case of a tie in the Council. It was 
pointed out that while the former Governor, Clinton, 
had always insisted upon his sole right to make nomina- 
tions, the former Councils had never conceded to him 
that right or relinquished their claim to the concurrent 
right; and that indeed in one case, that of the appoint- 
ment of Justice Benson, the Council had successfully 
asserted that right, in which Governor Clinton had 
perforce acquiesced. It was a "fighting document" 
from beginning to end, containing many acrimonious 



208 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

aspersions upon the Governor, and it is impossible to 
escape the belief that it was intended by DeWitt Clin- 
ton, who was doubtless its chief author, not so much for 
the Assembly as for the public at large. It was, in brief, 
a campaign document for use in the electoral campaign 
of that spring. 

The Legislature on April 6 adopted what was 
probably on the whole the best possible course. Jay 
had already suggested that it should recommend to the 
State the holding of a Constitutional convention to deal 
solely with the matter of legislative apportionment. It 
did adopt such a recommendatory resolution, but it also 
included as a subject upon which the convention should 
act the interpretation of the twenty-third article of the 
Constitution relating to the powers of the Council of 
Appointment. Then the Senate adopted a resolution 
declaring it to be the sense of the Legislature that the 
Council, as a matter of expediency, should waive its 
demands for concurrent power of nomination, so that 
the business of the State could be resumed in an orderly 
fashion. This resolution the Assembly refused to 
accept, doubtless at the suggestion of DeWitt Clinton. 
That aggressive leader not only opposed this resolu- 
tion, but also sought to have the Senate adopt in its place 
one drafted by himself, suggesting the possible need of 
invoking the power of impeachment against the Gov- 
ernor, and declaring that for the Legislature to attempt 
to prejudice a case which might thus come before it in 
its judicial capacity as a court of impeachment would 
be grossly improper. 




Albert Gallatin 

Albert Gallatin, secretary of the treasury; born in Geneva, 
Switzerland, January 29, 1761; emigrated to Boston, Mass., 
1780; served in revolutionary army; member of Pennsylvania 
constitutional convention, 1789; member of state legislature, 
1790-92; elected United States senator, but was refused^ seat 
upon the grounds that he had not been long enough a citizen 
of the United States; congressman, 1795-1801; appointed 
secretary of the treasury by President Jefferson, January 26, 
1802; reappointed by President Madison, and served until 
February 9, 1814, when he was appointed a commissioner to 
negotiate the Treaty of Ghent, which was signed December 
24, 1814; appointed United States minister to France by Pres- 
ident Madison in 1815, and served until 1823; minister plen- 
ipotentiarv to Great Britain from May 10, 1826 until October 
24, 1827; died at Astoria, L. I., August 12, 1849. 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 209 

This astounding resolution was rejected by the 
Senate, whereupon DeWitt Clinton introduced another, 
calling upon the Governor to convene the Council and 
"so to accommodate with them respecting the right 
of nomination as to prevent a further interruption of 
appointments until a constitutional decision can be had 
on that question." This also was rejected by the Senate. 
Finally, on April 8 the Assembly adopted a long 
resolution, referring to the Governor's failure to con- 
vene the Council and the consequent embarrassment of 
public business; declaring that responsibility for this 
state of affairs must rest upon either the Governor or 
the Council, and that the Assembly might have to resort 
to impeachment proceedings "against the delinquent or 
delinquents"; resenting the passage and transmission to 
the Assembly by the Senate of two resolutions "having 
a tendency to produce an interference in the said 
controversy" ; and declaring that the Assembly persisted 
in its former resolution denying the right of the Legis- 
lature to interpose between the Governor and the 
Council or to pass a declaratory act concerning the 
powers of the Council. 

That same day the Legislature adjourned and the 
matter was left for popular decision at the polls in the 
impending elections, both for Governor and Legisla- 
ture, and for members of the Constitutional conven- 
tion. The result was what might have been and indeed 
was generally expected. Jefferson had become Presi- 
dent of the United States, and his party, which we may 
now and hereafter call the Democratic party, was 
almost everywhere in the ascendant. New England 



210 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

indeed still remained largely Federalist, but not even 
the large influx of New England settlers could hold 
New York for that party. George Clinton was elected 
Governor by 24,808 votes against 20,843 cast for the 
"great patroon," Stephen Van Rensselaer, and a strong 
Democratic majority to support him was returned to 
the Legislature. The Constitutional convention, 
which was to meet at Albany on October 13, and for 
which an election was held on August 27, was also 
chiefly of that complexion. It will be fitting at this 
point to review briefly the work of that convention 
before proceeding with the more general narrative of 
the State's history. 

The two commanding figures in the convention were 
rivals for the leadership of the Democratic party, 
Aaron Burr and DeWitt Clinton — bitter and unrelent- 
ing personal foes. William P. Van Ness, the friend 
and agent of Burr, was also a conspicuous member; as 
was Smith Thompson, afterward a Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Daniel D. 
Tompkins, afterward Governor of New York, made his 
first appearance in public life as a delegate from New 
York county to this convention. The chief Federalist 
was the veteran John V. Henry, who came from Albany 
county. Aaron Burr was unanimously elected presi- 
dent of the convention, through three motives. One 
was, that he was Vice-President of the United States 
and therefore of higher official standing than any other 
member of the convention. The second was, on the 
part of his friends, that he should have the honor and 
influence of the place in order to promote his political 



1801] 



THE SPOILS SYSTEM 211 



interests. The third, on the part of his opponents, was 
that in the chair he would have less influence than as a 
leader on the floor. This last consideration prevailed 
with DeWitt Clinton, who thereupon constituted him- 
self leader of the convention. 

The first question considered by the convention was 
that of legislative apportionment. In this no partisan 
issue was involved, and a plan proposed by DeWitt 
Clinton was adopted with little discussion and with 
practically no opposition. Then arose the question of 
the powers of the Council of Appointment, and on this 
there was almost equal unanimity of opinion. Seeing 
that this was a partisan question, this unanimity might 
at first blush seem surprising. But we must remember 
that each party had at some time committed itself to 
each side of it, and that it was practically not so much 
a question of principle as of policy and temporary 
advantage. The Federalists had insisted upon the 
concurrent right of the Council to nominate when, in 
1794, they had forced the nomination of Egbert Benson 
as Justice of the Supreme Court upon the reluctant 
Governor Clinton, and the Democrats had done the 
same in their fight with Governor Jay in the early part 
of 1801. 

A resolution was introduced declaring that the 
Constitution was to be so construed as to give the 
members of the Council concurrent right and power of 
nomination with the Governor. Against this proposi- 
tion there was only one important speaker. That was 
John V. Henry, of Albany, the Federalist leader, who 
made in support of the Governor's exclusive right of 



212 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

nomination the most thoughtful address in the conven- 
tion. I There was no man in the convention whose 
character, experience, purity of motives, and unselfish 
devotion to the public welfare more entitled him to a' 
hearing and controlling influence. But Mr. Henry had 
shortly before been made a victim of the spoils system. 
He had been removed from the office of State Comp- 
troller for no other reason than that he was a Federalist 
and a Democrat wanted the place and its salary. On 
this account he was regarded in the convention as a 
"sorehead" who was animated by personal grievance. 
The imputation was entirely unfounded and unjust, but 
it served to lessen the force of his arguments. Two 
other prominent members sided with Mr. Henry. One 
was Burr's henchman, William P. Van Ness, who 
contented himself with voting against the pending 
resolution, and in so doing probably reflected Burr's 
wishes. The other was Daniel D. Tompkins, who not 
only voted but also spoke against it, a fact which in 
after years was a source of sincere and legitimate pride 
to him when the pernicious results of that resolution 
had become apparent. But Mr. Tompkins was at that 
time only twenty-six years old and had never before 
been in public life, and his words had little weight. 

The resolution interpreting the Constitution in favor 
of the Council of Appointment and against the Gov- 
ernor was favored by DeWitt Clinton, who both spoke 
and voted for it, and it was adopted with only fourteen 
negative votes. Thus was effected perhaps the most 
pernicious act thus far, if not for all time, in the history 
of the State. It was pernicious in a dual sense. There 



1801] 



THE SPOILS SYSTEM 213 



can now be no doubt that it was a misinterpretation of 
the Constitution. We know, of course, that it was 
exactly contrary to the intent of the author of the Con- 
stitution, and that it was contrary to the understanding 
of the foremost men among those who adopted the 
Constitution. It was also contrary to reason, precedent, 
and logic. But it was something still worse and far 
worse than that. The undisguised purpose of those 
who proposed and adopted it was not merely to give the 
nominating power to the Council, but also and 
especially to do so in order to establish the spoils 
system and to give any temporary party majority in the 
Assembly power to create a Council that would make a 
"clean sweep" of the offices in its favor. 

That this was the purpose of the politicians then in 
power had indeed been made plain by what had been 
happening during the summer, in the interval between 
the accession of the new State government and the 
meeting of the convention. At the beginning of July 
George Clinton had become Governor once more. 
There had then been no meeting of the Council of 
Appointment since February 24, when the deadlock 
had occurred between Governor Jay and the three 
Democratic members. Entirely apart from the issues 
involved in that controversy, there was much need that 
the Council should resume its action. Accordingly 
Governor Clinton took early occasion to call it together, 
and its first meeting under his administration was held 
at Albany on August 8, 1801. There was no reason to 
suppose that the Governor himself intended or desired 
the results that followed. He had formerly been Gov- 



214 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [isol 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ernor for eighteen years, and had been a decidedly 
self-assertive and autocratic Governor. Yet it does not 
appear that ever in so much as a single case had he 
removed or assented to the removal of a faithful and 
competent public officer on political grounds. Men 
had been removed, but they had been removed for 
adequate cause, of which due notice had been given 
them, and they had always had opportunity to defend 
themselves and to vindicate themselves, if they could, 
in hearings before the Council. In brief, an enlight- 
ened course had been pursued, in which efficient public 
service and not the rewarding of political activity or 
the building up of a partisan "machine" had been the 
aim. 

But a new spirit had now entered the political life of 
the State and of the nation. We must not denounce 
Jefferson as a spoilsman. On the contrary, he more 
than once or twice expressed himself vigorously and 
effectively against the spoils system. Yet even he in 
some noteworthy cases made changes in public office for 
political reasons, and thus set an example which, while 
legitimate in itself, encouraged and incited others to go 
to far greater extremes. To say, as Jefferson practically 
did, that the principal offices should be filled by men 
belonging to the majority party, and that the minor 
offices should be divided between the two parties in 
proportion to their strength at the polls, sounds 
plausible and equitable. But its fatal evil was that it 
gave recognition to the claims of partisanship in the 
public service and made it inevitable that under its 
operation there would be after every election a number 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 215 

of changes for purely political reasons. Practiced by 
the most conservative and moderate men, such a system 
could scarcely avoid abuse. In the hands of politicians 
more ambitious than scrupulous, it was certain to lead 
to scandalous debauchery of the civil service. 

The foremost protagonist of the new system was 
DeWitt Clinton ; still a young man — he was only thirty- 
two when he became the first political "boss" of New 
York, — of transcendent ability, of boundless ambition, 
of indomitable resolution, of an aggressiveness verging 
upon sheer pugnacity; happily of high integrity; after 
the retirement of Jay and the assassination of Hamilton 
probably the ablest man in the public life of New 
York. He had been foremost in the controversy with 
Governor Jay, as the Democratic leader of the Senate 
and the Council of Appointment, and with the reelec- 
tion of his uncle as Governor, with a Democratic 
majority in each house of the Legislature, he saw his 
opportunity of becoming the leader and dictator — for 
with him leadership meant dictatorship — of the Demo- 
cratic party of the State. That his ambitions were for 
the sake of his uncle, or that his uncle was privy to 
them, or indeed approved them, does not appear. As 
already noted, Governor Clinton had never made 
removals from office for political reasons, and there is 
no proof that he had changed his mind or his policy. 
But he was beginning to suffer the infirmities of 
advancing years and was unable to resist, even though 
he wished it, the impetuous zeal of his aggressive 
young kinsman. In consequence, during this seventh 
term of his Governorship, not George Clinton himself 
but DeWitt Clinton was the commanding figure in the 



216 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

State. He had only two possible rivals. One was 
Robert R. Livingston, and the other was Aaron Burr. 
But the former was temperamentally and through phy- 
sical infirmity unfitted for leadership, while the latter's 
notorious lack of personal integrity had already largely 
forfeited public confidence. To make assurance of his 
mastery over both of them doubly sure, however, 
DeWitt Clinton promptly manceuvered an alliance 
between the Clinton and Livingston clans against Burr, 
thus finally and utterly disposing of him, and then 
secured for the three Livingstons distinguished occupa- 
tions which would remove them from active political 
leadership in New York. Robert R. Livingston 
accepted from Jefferson the appointment as Minister to 
France which he would not accept from Washington, 
and in that place did his greatest work for America and 
for the world. Edward Livingston became United 
States District Attorney and Mayor of New York City 
until the rascality of a subordinate brought him so near 
to ruin that he was fain to remove to Louisiana, where 
he did a work in legal codification that entitles his 
name to immortality. Brockholst Livingston became, 
a few years later, a Justice of the Supreme Court of 
^ New York. It may be added, as a reminder of the place 
which the Livingston clan then filled in public life, that 
John Armstrong, United States Senator, was a brother- 
in-law of Robert R. and Edward Livingston; Morgan 
Lewis, who became Chief -Justice of the Supreme Court 
of New York, was another brother-in-law ; and Thomas 
Tillotson, Secretary of State of New York, was a third 
brother-in-law. 



1801] 



THE SPOILS SYSTEM 217 



The Council of Appointment at this time consisted, 
as hitherto recorded, of DeWitt Clinton, Ambrose 
Spencer, Robert Roseboom, and John Sanders. The 
last-named was a Federalist, and therefore was a negli- 
gible factor. Mr. Roseboom was the eldest of all, but 
while a man of integrity and sincere devotion to the 
public service he had no family influence, was non- 
aggressive in spirit, and was of mediocre intellectual 
ability. He was essentially a loyal follower rather than 
a leader. Mr. Spencer was a little older than Clinton, 
and was a lawyer of distinction, but he lacked the 
political ambition, acumen, and aggressiveness of his 
younger colleague, with whom, however, he worked in 
complete harmony. Thus DeWitt Clinton became the 
unquestioned leader of the Council of Appointment, 
and that, under the interpretation of that body's con- 
stitutional powers which he insisted upon and which in 
time was formally made by the Constitutional conven- 
tion, meant that he was the master and dispenser of the 
political patronage of the State. 

At the first meeting of the Council of Appointment 
in this administration, on August 8, the first thing done 
was the appointment of two of the men whom Governor 
Jay had refused to appoint and over DeWitt Clinton's 
demand for the appointment of whom the breach 
between the Governor and the Council had occurred. 
These were John Blake, Sheriff of Orange county, and 
Peter Vrooman, Sheriff of Schoharie county. There 
seems to have been no objection to these appointments. 
But the next one, made at the same meeting, did give 
much offense. Sylvanus Miller, of Ulster county, was 



218 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

DeWitt Clinton's most obedient servant. He greatly 
desired to remove to New York City if he could get a 
lucrative office there, and Clinton also desired him 
there because of the greater political influence which 
he could exert in that larger place. So Clinton had the 
Council appoint him Surrogate of New York county. 
Now, Mr. Miller was well fitted for the place by ability 
and character, and his personal and social qualities were 
such that he soon became a prime favorite in New York, 
so that the city was glad to have him serve as Surrogate 
for many years. But there was much resentment at first 
at the appointment of a "rank outsider" — what in after 
years was called a "carpetbagger 1 ' — to an office which 
many residents of the city were quite competent to fill. 
In this case no harm was done, but an example was set 
which in later years proved mischievous. 

There was still further criticism of the action of the 
Council at this time in removing two eminently capable 
and highly honored men from office to make places on 
purely political grounds for two less competent men. 
Daniel Hale was removed from the office of Secretary 
of State, and his place was filled by Thomas Tillotson, 
whose claim to it lay entirely in the fact that he was a 
brother-in-law of Robert R. Livingston. John V. 
Henry, one of the ablest and most generally esteemed 
men in public life in the State, was removed from the 
Comptrollership to make room for Elisha Jenkins, an 
entirely respectable but far less competent man, who 
had, however, the advantage of being the very obedient 
and politically useful servant of Mr. Spencer. Nor 
could it be alleged that the Council was making such 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 219 

changes in only the chief offices whose occupants, it 
might be argued, should be in political accord with the 
head of the government. The same process was 
extended to a number of minor places, such as Master 
in Chancery and County Judge, in which the political 
predilections of the incumbents could be of not the 
slightest consequence. Such applications of the spoils 
system were revolting to Governor Clinton, who pro- 
tested against the appointments, insisted upon his 
protest being entered upon the minutes of the Council, 
and in at least one case refused to sign the minutes 
because they did not sufficiently set forth his opposition 
to some changes in office. 

Worse followed. At the next meeting of the Council, 
three days later, the "clean sweep" was continued. 
Cadwallader D. Colden was dismissed from the office 
of District Attorney to make room for Richard Riker, a 
henchman of Clinton's and his second in the Swartwout 
duel; and Richard Harrison was similarly dismissed 
from the Recordership of New York in favor of John 
B. Prevost; in both cases the changes being made for 
purely partisan reasons, and the new men being 
obviously less fit than their distinguished predecessors. 
Robert Benson, Clerk of the City of New York, was 
sacrificed for the sake of Teunis Wormian, a man of 
ability but of doubtful character, and William Coleman 
was removed as Clerk of the Circuit Court to make a 
place for John McKisson, a friend of Mr. Spencer's — 
whereupon, it is of interest to recall, Alexander Hamil- 
ton made Mr. Coleman editor of the New York 
Evening Post, which he at that time founded. All over 



220 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

the State the "clean sweep" extended. County Clerks, 
Sheriffs, and other officers were turned out solely 
because they were Federalists in favor of Democrats 
and personal friends and relatives of the members of the 
Council of Appointment. There is no exaggeration in 
the strenuous declaration of Henry Adams in his "His- 
tory of the United States," that DeWitt Clinton and 
Ambrose Spencer "swept the Federalists out of every 
office even down to that of auctioneer, and without 
regard to appearances, even against the protests of the 
Governor, installed their own friends and family con- 
nections in power. . . . DeWitt Clinton was hardly 
less responsible than Burr himself for lowering the 
standard of New York politics, and indirectly that of 
the nation." 

It would be unjust, however, to let this entirely cor- 
rect estimate pass without averting the possibility of 
misinterpretation. It would be monstrous to write 
"arcades ambo" against the names of DeWitt Clinton 
and Aaron Burr. The characters and motives of the 
two were as far apart as the poles. Both were politically 
and personally ambitious. But the one was politically 
and personally honest, and the other was politically and 
personally dishonest. Greater difference than that could 
not exist. Clinton exercised far greater and more 
prolonged influence in New York politics than Burr, 
and was responsible for a far more extensive application 
of the spoils system. Still, we must remember that there 
is, after all, a radical distinction between spoils and 
corruption, and that distinction is the measure of the 
contrast between the two men. DeWitt Clinton aimed 



1S011 



THE SPOILS SYSTEM 221 



to fill all the offices with his political friends, but he 
wanted them filled honestly and efficiently. Burr cared 
less about the political complexion of office-holders 
than about their subserviency to his sordid and corrupt 
schemes. Democrat though he professed to be, he 
always preferred a dishonest Federalist to an honest 
Democrat. Clinton was even more than Burr respon- 
sible for the introduction of the system of partisan 
spoils; but Burr was supremely responsible for the 
bipartisan system of political knavery, such as reached 
its fruition two generations later in the Tweed Ring. 

We can almost forgive Clinton for his proscription 
of Federalist office-holders because of the deathblow 
which he thus gave to Burr. He and Spencer did not 
withhold their hands in that epochal summer of 1801 
until every Federalist had been turned out of office with 
the solitary exception of Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the 
Attorney-General of the State, and he was permitted to 
remain a little longer not because of his eminent virtues 
and talents but because Spencer wanted the place for 
himself but was not quite ready to take it. On the other 
hand, of the hundreds of new men appointed to office 
there was not one who was known to be a partisan or a 
friend of Burr's. Some men of high character and 
approved ability were passed by for men of less 
competence, simply because they were or were suspected 
to be friendly to the Vice-President. "No man," wrote 
Burr's henchman, Van Ness, "however virtuous, how- 
ever unspotted his life or his fame, could be advanced 
to the most unimportant appointment unless he would 
abandon all intercourse with Mr. Burr, vow opposition 



222 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

to his elevation, and pledge his personal services to 
traduce his character." This was no doubt an exagger- 
ation, but at least it was required of all appointees that 
they should be passively if not actively opposed to Burr. 

Nor was DeWitt Clinton content with excluding 
Burr's friends from new appointments to office. He 
struck direct blows at Burr in the places which he 
already held. Hardest of all was the compelling of 
Burr and his friend John Swartwout to resign from the 
directorate of that Manhattan Bank which Burr had 
corruptly organized under the guise of a water supply 
for New York. That was a body blow at Burr in his 
chief stronghold of political and pecuniary power, and 
from it he never recovered. It exasperated him so as to 
provoke him to the madness which culminated in his 
assassination of Hamilton and thus ended his political 
career in New York. Finding all local appointments 
thus barred against his friends, Burr turned to the man 
against whom he had treacherously intrigued, and 
besought the President to name United States officers 
in New York of his selection, to-wit, a Marshal, 
Collector, Supervisor, and Naval Officer. Jefferson 
complied so far as to appoint John Swartwout to be 
Marshal. Then Clinton intervened, Jefferson sum- 
marily rejected all the rest of Burr's candidates, and 
thereupon Burr began his open hostility to Jefferson. 

At this time, too, there arose a spirit of violence in 
public controversy which has probably never been sur- 
passed anywhere or at any time. One of the earliest 
examples was given by Ambrose Spencer in his reply 
to the protest of Ebenezer Foote, a former Senator and 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 223 

a man of high character and standing, against his sum- 
mary removal from the Clerkship of Delaware county. 
"It was," said Mr. Spencer, "an act of justice to the 
public, inasmuch as in removing you the veriest hypo- 
crite and most malignant villain in the State was 
deprived of the power of perpetrating mischief." This, 
however, was a mild beginning. A little later, in 1802 
and 1803, came the famous controversy between DeWitt 
Clinton through his cousin, James Cheetham, and 
Aaron Burr through his fidus Achates, William P. 
Van Ness. Clinton was the owner of a newspaper, the 
American Citizen and Watchtower, of which Cheet- 
ham, a naturalized Englishman, was editor. In that 
paper, and in volumes entitled "A Narrative," "A View 
of the Political Conduct of Aaron Burr," and "Letters 
on the Subject of Burr's Defection," he persistently 
arraigned, attacked, and excoriated Burr with a copious 
citation of facts and dates, persons and places, and 
illimitable bitterness of sarcasm and denunciation. 
Cheetham was a master of that sort of political contro- 
versy and was doubtless the actual writer, but the 
inspiration and the animus were of course DeWitt 
Clinton's. "All the world," says Henry Adams, "knew 
that not Cheetham, but DeWitt Clinton, thus dragged 
the Vice-President from his chair"; though it is not so 
certain that entire justice is done in what follows, that 
"Not Burr's vices but his influence made his crimes 
heinous." Such a judgment implies a moral insensi- 
bility which we should regret to impute to Clinton and 
his associates, even amid their utmost frenzy of partisan 
animosity. 



224 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The replies of Van Ness, in defense of Burr, were 
anonymous. Everybody knew the authorship of 
Cheetham's writings, but not until years afterward did 
it become known that the letters of "Aristides" in the 
public press were written by William P. Van Ness. It 
must be confessed that in literary style Van Ness was 
more than a match for Cheetham. In fact, the world's 
literature of acrimonious political controversy contains 
few more brilliant productions than some of the "Aris- 
tides" letters. In convincing power, however, Van 
Ness fell far short of Cheetham, because instead of 
presenting facts he simply indulged in epithets. That, 
it is true, was not his fault so much as his misfortune. 
He had the wrong side of the case. The facts were on 
the other side. He had therefore to follow the rule, 
"When you have no case, abuse the opposing attorney!" 
In doing that he ran the whole gamut of vilification 
until, like Vivien, he left 

"Not even Lancelot brave, nor Galahad clean." 

Chancellor Livingston, said "Aristides," was "a 
capricious, visionary theorist" whose "frivolous mind 
revolted" at all "important and laborious pursuits" — a 
strangely inept characterization of a man who did so 
much at the very zenith of his career in such "important 
and laborious pursuits" as the promotion of steam navi- 
gation and the fertilization of agricultural lands. 
Tillotson, Livingston's brother-in-law, was "a con- 
temptible, shuffling apothecary, without ingenuity, or 
spirit to pursue any systematic plan of iniquity." Riker, 
the close friend of DeWitt Clinton, was "an imbecile 




Edward Livingston 

Edward Livingston; born Livingston Manor, N. Y., May 26, 
1764; lawyer; member of congress, 1795-1801 and 1823-29; 
United States district attorney, 1801-3; mayor of New York 
City, 1801-3; removed to Louisiana, 1804; served in the battle 
of New Orleans under General Jackson; member Louisiana 
state legislature, 1820; elected to congress and to the United 
States senate, 1829-31; resigned May 24, 1831 to become 
secretary of state; minister plenipotentiary to France, 1833-35; 
died in Barrvtov.n, Dutchess county, N. Y., May 23. 1836. 







John Lansing, Jr. 

John Lansing, Jr., chancellor; born in Albany, N. Y., 
January 30, 1754; lawyer; secretary to Gen. Philip Schuyler, 
1776-77; delegate to continental congress, 1784-85; delegate 
to state convention to ratify federal constitution, 1788; member 
of assembly, 1780-89; justice supreme court of New York, 
1790-98; chief justice, 1798-1801; chancellor, 1801-14; unan- 
imously nominated by Anti-Federalists for governor of New 
York in 1804 but declined; mysteriously disappeared after 
leaving his hotel to post a letter at one of the docks of New 
York City, December 12, 1829. 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 225 

and obsequious pettifogger, a vain and contemptible 
little pest." McKisson, the friend of Spencer, was "an 
execrable compound of every species of vice." 
Ambrose Spencer himself was "a man as notoriously 
infamous as the legitimate offspring of treachery and 
fraud can possibly be." Samuel Osgood, formerly 
United States Postmaster-General, was "a born hypo- 
crite," who "propagated falsehood for the purpose of 
slander and imposition." Governor George Clinton 
himself had "dwindled into the mere instrument of an 
ambitious relative." 

These, however, were mere "ballons d'essai." It was 
when he got at work upon DeWitt Clinton himself that 
"Aristides" Van Ness rose to the full height — or 
descended to the full depth— of vituperative maledic- 
tion. Clinton was "formed for mischief, inflated with 
vanity, cruel by nature." He was "an object of derision 
and disgust." He was "an adept in moral turpitude, 
skilled in all the combinations of treachery and fraud, 
with a mind matured by the practice of iniquity, and 
unalloyed with any principle of virtue." With auda- 
cious irony "Aristides" declared that if it were not 
"disgraceful to political controversy" he would 
"develop the dark and gloomy disorders of his malig- 
nant bosom, and trace each convulsive vibration of his 
wicked heart"; but, refraining for very shame from 
saying what he might have said, he contented himself 
with pillorying Clinton as one of those "who, though 
destitute of sound understandings, are still rendered 
dangerous to society by the intrinsic baseness of char- 
acter that engenders hatred to everything good and 



226 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

valuable in the world; who with barbarous malignity 
view the prevalence of moral principles and the 
extension of benevolent designs; who, foes to virtue, 
seek the subversion of every valuable institution, and 
meditate the introduction of wild and furious disorders 
among the supporters of public virtue." He had culti- 
vated "intimacy with men who have long since 
disowned all regard to decency and have become the 
daring advocates of every species of atrocity." He had 
formed an "indissoluble connection with those who by 
their lives have become finished examples of profligacy 
and corruption," and who "have sworn enmity, severe 
and eternal, to the altar of our religion and the pros- 
perity of our government." Of course these things 
"must infallibly exclude him from the confidence of 
reputable men." Finally, Clinton was — the reference 
was, of course, to his intimacy with Cheetham — "the 
constant associate of a man whose name has become 
synonymous with vice, a dissolute and fearless assassin 
of private character, of domestic comfort, and of social 
happiness; the bosom friend and supporter of the 
profligate and abandoned libertine, who, from the vul- 
gar debauches of night, hastens again to the invasion of 
private property; who, through the robbery of the 
public revenue and the violation of private seals, hurries 
down the precipice of deep and desperate villainy." 

If now we smile weariedly at these extravagances, 
and wonder that they did not instantly condemn their 
author to fatal ridicule, we must remember — what is 
indeed suggested by Van Ness's pen name, "Aristides" 
— that the United States, and especially New York, had 



1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 227 

then fallen under the spell of a certain neo-classicism. 
The towns of the State were being named Rome and 
Athens and Syracuse and Homer and Ovid, and every 
public building, if not indeed every private house above 
the rank of the merest cottage, must be modeled after a 
Greek or Roman temple. It was only natural, there- 
fore, for Van Ness to take for his model Cicero's 
orations against Catiline and Verres, and it was only 
natural for the public generally to take his extravagant 
diatribes in all seriousness. 

While in fluency of railing and copiousness of vilifi- 
cation Van Ness surpassed Cheetham, the moral victory 
was never in doubt on Clinton's side. Burr's private 
and public turpitude was by this time too well known 
to permit the rehabilitation of his character by mere 
unsupported lampooning of other men. But high words 
led to high passions, and these to personal conflicts. 
Those were unhappily still the days of the "field of 
honor." When Swartwout declared that DeWitt 
Clinton's opposition to Burr was based upon unworthy 
and selfish motives, Clinton replied that Swartwout was 
"a liar, a scoundrel, and a villain." Swartwout 
demanded a retraction, which Clinton refused, and a 
duel followed on the notorious duelling ground at Wee- 
hawken, New Jersey. Three shots were exchanged 
without effect; Clinton's fourth and fifth wounded 
Swartwout in the leg; Swartwout continued to demand 
a retraction, but Clinton declined to give it or to fight 
further, and left the field expressing a wish that he 
could have Swartwout's principal there — meaning, of 
course, Burr. Clinton afterward said that it was a silly 



228 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1801 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

affair, that he ought to have declined Swartwout's chal- 
lenge and himself have challenged Burr. Another duel 
followed between Clinton's second, Riker, and Swart- 
wout's younger brother, Robert Swartwout, in which 
the former was badly wounded. A third resulted 
fatally. Coleman, in the Evening Post, printed a bitter 
quatrain : 

"Lie on, Duane, lie on for pay, 

And Cheetham, He thou too; 
More against Truth you cannot say 

Than Truth can say 'gainst you." 

Duane, editor of the notorious Aurora, the savage 
lampooner and vilifier of Washington, appears to have 
paid no attention to it, but Cheetham took it up and a 
challenge followed. Before the meeting, however, 
Cheetham weakened and compromised the matter. 
Thereupon Thompson, the Harbor Master of New 
York, a partisan of Clinton's, took up the quarrel. 
Coleman challenged him, and they met at the close of a 
winter day at what is now the foot of West Twenty-first 
Street, New York. After two ineffective shots they 
came closer together in the growing darkness, and at 
the next shot Thompson fell mortally wounded. 

To complete the record of the eventful year 1801 it 
remains to be recalled that in the closing hours of his 
administration President Adams appointed Egbert 
Benson to be a Circuit Judge of the United States, 
whereupon the latter of course resigned his place on the 
Supreme bench of New York. Then Robert R. Liv- 
ingston resigned the Chancellorship, because of advanc- 
ing age, and John Lansing, Jr., Chief-Justice of the 









1801] THE SPOILS SYSTEM 229 

Supreme Court, was appointed to succeed him. These 
changes made two vacancies in the Supreme Court, 
beside which there was felt to be need of another Jus- 
tice. No appointments were made for several months, 
and the Federalists charged that DeWitt Clinton and 
Ambrose Spencer were planning to have themselves 
appointed to the places. This was certainly untrue 
concerning Clinton, though it is probable that Spencer 
had ambition to ascend the bench, as indeed he after- 
ward did. But before the end of the year Morgan 
Lewis was appointed Chief-Justice, and Brockholst 
Livingston and Smith Thompson were made Associate- 
Justices — all admirable men, and all members of the 
Livingston clan. 



CHAPTER XI 
THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 

GEORGE CLINTON was Governor again, 
DeWitt Clinton was the political dictator of the 
State, and the Clinton-Livingston alliance was 
all-powerful. For a time, as we have seen, the personal 
conflict between DeWitt Clinton and Burr dominated 
attention. But it was destined, with all other State 
issues, to yield place to a greater strife, of national scope, 
involving the man who was, far more than the younger 
Clinton, the antagonist of Burr and the obstacle in the 
way of his dark and devious machinations. Hamilton 
had of course retired from public life at Washington 
with the accession of Jefferson, and had no thought of 
seeking State office in New York. But he was still the 
dominant figure in that remnant of the Federalist party 
which, however impotent in national politics, was still 
strong in several of the States, and which was capable 
of exercising much influence with a balance of power 
between the factions into which the Democratic party 
was divided. From the moment when the rising power 
of DeWitt Clinton doomed Burr to defeat in New 
York, there began a train of incidents that led straight 
to the greatest tragedy thus far in American history. 

At first all seemed serene. The Twenty-fifth Legisla- 
ture met at Albany on January 26, 1802, and listened to 
Governor Clinton's address, perhaps the most states- 

230 



1802] 



THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 231 



manlike that he had ever delivered. It was a thoughtful 
presentation and discussion of the chief interests of the 
State, with various wise recommendations and without 
a trace of partisanship. There was in it no reflection 
of the storm which was raging in the politics of the 
State ; no hint of the greater storm which was inevitably 
gathering. Of like character were the numerous com- 
munications which the Governor addressed to the 
Legislature during the session. Not one was contro- 
versial. 

The proceedings of the Legislature likewise were 
devoid of partisan contention. Thomas Storm, a New 
York City Democrat, was chosen Speaker of the Assem- 
bly, and one of the first acts of that body was to elect a 
new Council of Appointment in place of that which 
under DeWitt Clinton's lead had waged so strenuous 
a campaign for spoils. Four entirely new men were 
chosen : Benjamin Hunting from the Southern district, 
James W. Wilkin from the Middle, Edward Savage 
from the Eastern, and Lemuel Chipman from the West- 
ern. It was a Democratic body, and it appointed none 
but Democrats to office, though the "clean sweep" of 
its predecessor had been so thorough that there were 
few remaining Federalists to be replaced. The most 
conspicuous change in office was the practically 
enforced resignation of Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Fed- 
eralist, as Attorney-General, and the appointment of 
Ambrose Spencer in his place. This change, as hitherto 
intimated, had long been in contemplation. But Mr. 
Spencer had been a member of the former Council of 
Appointment, and did not deem it fitting that he should 



232 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1802 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

seek or accept such elevation at the hands of a body of 
which he was himself a member, especially since there 
had recently been some discussion of a proposed — 
though never adopted — rule prohibiting appointment 
by the Council of one of its own members to office. 
Accordingly there had been an understanding that Mr. 
Hoffman should be permitted to retain his office until 
a new Council should be chosen of which Mr. Spencer 
would not be a member; when Mr. Hoffman would 
"resign" and Mr. Spencer would be appointed in his 
place. On the same day when this appointment was 
made, William Stewart, a brother-in-law of the Gov- 
ernor, was restored to the office of District Attorney for 
Tioga, Ontario, and other counties, from which he had 
been removed by the Federalist Council during Jay's 
administration. 

The extraordinary habit which United States Sen- 
ators from New York seemed to have, of resigning their 
seats, was continued in February, 1802, when the resig- 
nation of John Armstrong was reported to the Legisla- 
ture by Governor Clinton. Mr. Armstrong had for- 
merly been a Federalist, but had left that party with 
the Livingstons, to whom he was related. In his place 
the Legislature elected DeWitt Clinton, who had only 
just reached the age required by the Constitution for a 
Senator of the United States. This added fuel to the 
fire of animosity between Clinton and Burr, the latter 
accusing the former of having intrigued against Arm- 
strong to compel his resignation, and of having secured 
the appointment of Dr. Tillotson, a member of the 
Livingston family, as Secretary of State, on the condi- 



1802-3] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 233 

tion that Armstrong would resign. For these charges 
there was, of course, not the slightest ground. It was 
inconceivable that Armstrong would lend himself or 
submit himself to any such scheme, while of course it 
was the most natural thing in the world that, if Arm- 
strong resigned for any cause, DeWitt Clinton should 
be chosen to succeed him. 

The other transactions of the Legislature were chiefly 
of a routine and non-contentious character, well calcu- 
lated to promote the general welfare of the rapidly 
growing commonwealth, and the session was adjourned 
without day on April 2. The spring elections followed, 
in which every Senator chosen was a Democrat and a 
large majority of the Assemblymen were of the same 
party. There followed the Clinton-Burr, or Cheetham- 
Van Ness, controversy and the other incidents already 
related, the net result of which was more and more to 
exclude Burr from the councils of the Democratic 
party. Nearly all of the Democrats chosen to the 
Legislature in April, 1802, were hostile to Burr, and in 
the late fall of that year practically the entire Demo- 
cratic press of the State, under the lead of the then very 
influential Albany Register, was aligned against him. 

The Twenty-sixth Legislature met at Albany on 
January 25, 1803. Thomas Storm was reelected 
Speaker of the Assembly, and Mr. Van Ingen, a Fed- 
eralist, was dropped from the Clerkship of that house, 
which he had long filled, and was succeeded by Solomon 
Southwick, a brilliant and aggressive young Democrat, 
who was the brother-in-law of Mr. Barber, the editor 
of the Albany Register; a circumstance which gave 



234 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1803 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Burr's friends a chance to say that his election to the 
Clerkship was in payment for the Register's opposition 
to Burr, an entirely unfounded charge. The Governor 
in his address referred to the ominous controversy with 
Spain over the navigation of the Mississippi River, 
dwelt upon the desirability of self-reliant military pre- 
paredness, urged improvement of navigation of the 
Hudson River, and emphasized the need of a general 
and permanent system of common schools for popular 
education such as had not yet been provided. As before, 
his address was free from partisanship and controversy. 
The term of Gouverneur Morris in the United States 
Senate was to expire on March 4, and early in the ses- 
sion the duty of electing his successor was taken in 
hand. No Federalist could hope to be chosen, and 
therefore the competition was confined to the Demo- 
cratic party. The chief aspirants were General 
Theodorus Bailey, of Dutchess county, and John 
Woodworth, of Rensselaer county, who was afterward 
Attorney-General and a Justice of the Supreme Court. 
At the party caucus Mr. Woodworth won the nomina- 
tion by 45 votes to General Bailey's 30. Thereupon 
Matthias B. Talmadge, a Senator, who was Bailey's 
brother-in-law, bolted the caucus nomination and 
persuaded a number of Senators and Assemblymen, 
chiefly from the southern part of the State, to follow 
him. Despite this defection, on the next day, February 
1, Mr. Woodworth was nominated in the Assembly, 
receiving S3 votes to 19 for General Bailey and 18 for 
Gouverneur Morris, whom of course the Federalists 
wished to reelect. In the Senate the Federalists, 



1803] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 235 

realizing that Morris's reelection was impossible, under 
the lead of Abraham Van Vechten joined the bolting 
Democrats and voted solidly for General Bailey, with 
the result that he received the Senate's nomination. The 
two houses then met for joint ballot; the Federalists in 
both Senate and Assembly voted for General Bailey, 
together with Mr. Talmadge's bolting Democrats, and 
he was thus elected by 59 votes to Woodworth's 57. 

During this session there occurred the great scandal 
of the defalcation of the State Treasurer, Mr. 
McClanan, in the sum of more than $33,000. He had 
been heavily in debt when he was appointed to the 
office, and some of his creditors were believed to have 
urged his appointment in the expectation that thus he 
would be enabled to satisfy their claims, which he in 
fact did by paying them with State funds. The Legis- 
lature thereupon appointed as his successor Abraham 
G. Lansing, brother of the Chancellor, John Lansing, 
a man of wealth, integrity, and fine business abilities. 
It also enacted that the Treasurer should thereafter keep 
the State funds in the Bank of Albany, in which he 
should have no private account of his own, and should 
permit the Comptroller of the State to examine his bank 
book at least once a month. In case any irregularities 
were detected, they were to be reported to the Governor, 
who should immediately suspend the Treasurer from 
his functions and cause them to devolve upon the officers 
of the Bank of Albany. 

A law was enacted on March 19 chartering the New 
York State Bank, an incident noteworthy for the extra- 
ordinary ground taken by the petitioners. They set 



236 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1803 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

forth that there were then only three banks in the State 
outside of New York City. These were the Bank of 
Columbia at Hudson, the Bank of Albany at Albany, 
and the Farmers' Bank, between Lansingburg and 
Troy. The stock of all three of these banks was chiefly 
owned by Federalists. Therefore the petitioners for 
the new bank, who were all Democrats, asked that their 
charter be granted in order that there might be at least 
one bank in the State under Democratic ownership! 

The Legislature adjourned on April 6 without day, 
and in the ensuing elections the Democrats were again 
successful, as indeed they were that year in nearly all 
parts of the United States. The Democratic majority 
in the State was 8,588, and in the Assembly they had 
83 members to only 17 Federalists. It was the irony of 
fate, however, that the sweeping Democratic victories 
of that year were largely to be credited to the good 
works of the defeated Federalists. Peace and good 
relations with Great Britain were due to Jay's once 
execrated treaty and to Adams's equally execrated 
diplomacy, while the fortunate condition of national 
finances, credit, commerce, and industry was due to the 
wise policy of Hamilton. The Democrats were, how- 
ever, to be credited with the repeal of the hated Sedition 
law, with the settlement of the Mississippi-Louisiana 
controversy, and with the reduction of military expenses 
through the disbanding of the army. 

Then came two more resignations of United States 
Senatorships. The first was that of DeWitt Clinton, 
who took that step in order to become Mayor of New 
York City. The latter office had been resigned by 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 237 

Edward Livingston in order that he might be free to 
accept that of United States District Attorney — though 
he afterward regretted his resignation and signified 
willingness to be reappointed, concluding that it would 
not be inappropriate to hold both offices at the same 
time. Morgan Lewis, Chief-Justice of the Supreme 
Court, was a candidate for the Mayoralty. But DeWitt 
Clinton, who longed to be back in the thick of New 
York politics, wanted the place for himself, and so the 
Council appointed him and he resigned the Senator- 
ship. The other resignation was that of General Bailey, 
who very soon after he had taken his seat in the Senate 
was appointed postmaster at New York and was there- 
fore compelled to tender his resignation. The two seats 
remained vacant until filled by the succeeding Legisla- 
ture on February 2, 1804, when John Armstrong and 
John Smith were elected almost without opposition. 

The Twenty-seventh Legislature met on January 31, 
1804, and Alexander Sheldon, of Montgomery county, 
was chosen Speaker of the Assembly. The Governor 
reported to it the Twelfth amendment to the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, providing the method of 
electing the President and Vice-President, and it was 
promptly ratified. Reference was indirectly made to 
the impressment of American seamen by foreign 
powers, but generally the address was devoted to the 
routine interests of the State. On April 1 1 the Legisla- 
ture adjourned, to meet again on November 4 for the 
choice of Presidential Electors. 

Meantime there was in progress a campaign for the 
Governorship, and also for the Presidency of the United 



238 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

States. The Governor would be chosen in April, and 
at the same time would be chosen a Legislature which 
would name the Electors who were to vote for President 
and Vice-President of the United States. That Jeffer- 
son would be reelected President was a foregone con- 
clusion. That Burr would not be reelected Vice- 
President was no less certain. At Washington and 
throughout the country generally all confidence in his 
integrity and even in his loyalty to the Union had been 
lost. Nor does it appear that Burr himself desired 
reelection. The office of Vice-President was not to his 
liking. It had too little political power, too little 
opportunity for intrigue and corrupt speculation. He 
therefore made no effort to secure renomination, and 
was quite resigned to the practically unanimous choice 
of George Clinton as the Democratic candidate to suc- 
ceed him. 

Clinton's candidacy for the Vice-Presidency made it 
necessary, however, for the Democrats of New York to 
select another candidate for Governor of the State, and 
for that place Burr hastened to put himself forward, 
apparently with confident expectation of success. The 
State was now so overwhelmingly Democratic that he 
could win if even a considerable faction of that party 
refused to support him. With George Clinton running 
for the Vice-Presidency, and DeWitt Clinton in the 
Senate or resigning the Senatorship to become Mayor 
of New York, and with the Livingstons all well pro- 
vided with office, he thought that he had little fear 
from any rival from that Clinton-Livingston alliance 
which had been dominating the State; while of course 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 239 

the Schuylers and the Federalist party were in a hope- 
less minority. Besides, he still had many friends, some 
of whom clung to him because of his undoubted talents, 
some through dislike of his opponents, some because of 
the strange fascination that he exercised over both 
men and women. William Van Ness was still his 
impassioned champion. John Van Ness Yates, son of 
the former Chief-Justice, Robert Yates, was on his side. 
Even Erastus Root favored his candidacy. In New 
York City, Jonathan Fisk, George Gardner, Peter 
Townsend, Marinus Willett, and David M. Westcott, 
among the foremost citizens, were active in his behalf. 

Burr's friends were early, though not first, in the 
field. On February 18 they held a caucus of members 
of the Legislature in Albany, and formally nominated 
him for Governor. There were probably not more than 
a score of members present. William Tabor, a 
Dutchess county Assemblyman, was chairman, and 
Joseph Annin, Senator from the Western district, was 
secretary of the caucus. Two days later Marinus 
Willett presided at a meeting in New York, at which 
the nomination was ratified. Finally, a citizens' mass- 
meeting in Albany ratified the nomination of Burr, and 
named for the Lieutenant-Governorship Oliver Phelps, 
a great landowner of Ontario county. 

Before this, however, the majority of the Democratic 
members of the Legislature held a caucus in the 
Assembly chamber and nominated John Lansing, the 
Chancellor, for Governor, and John Broome, a Senator 
and member of the Council of Appointment, for Lieu- 
tenant-Governor. Mr. Lansing was reluctant to accept. 



240 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

He liked the office of Chancellor, for which he was 
admirably fitted, and he hesitated to resign it when he 
still had ten years more to serve, for the sake of a 
political office the term of which was only three years 
But he finally accepted when it was urged upon him 
that he alone could command the united strength of the 
party. 

Within a few hours of Mr. Lansing's reluctant 
acceptance on that ground, however, the falsity of that 
ground was made apparent in the nomination of Burr. 
He thereupon withdrew his acceptance of the nomina- 
tion, declaring that events subsequent to his acceptance 
had convinced him of the vanity of the hope that he 
would be able to hold the party united and to advance 
its principles. On February 20, therefore, another 
Democratic caucus was held, and after much discussion 
Morgan Lewis, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court 
and a member of the Livingston clan, was nominated in 
Mr. Lansing's place, Mr. Broome remaining as candi- 
date for Lieutenant-Governor. 

Meanwhile, the Federalists were active but inde- 
cisive. They had no hope of electing a candidate of 
their own. But remembering their achievement in the 
Senatorial contest between Bailey and Woodworth, they 
reckoned that they might hold the balance of power 
between two Democratic candidates. When, therefore, 
both Lansing and Burr were put forward, they saw 
their opportunity, and, sad to say, their general 
inclination was to support Burr against Lansing — 
apparently on the ground that Burr's election would 




wsri» 




Morgan Lewis 

Morgan Lewis, 4th governor (1804-7) ; born in New York 
Citv, October 16, 1754; lawyer; soldier in revolution; member 
state legislature 1789, 1792; attorney general; judge supreme 
court, chief judge; governor, 1804-7; state senator, 1811-14; 
quartermaster general, brigadier general, major general, U. 
S. army in war of 1812; died in New York City, April 7. 1S44. 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 241 

discredit the Democratic party while Lansing's would 
strengthen it. For the sake of damaging the opposing 
party they were willing to imperil the welfare of the 
State. 

Happily, nobler counsels prevailed, dictated by that 
transcendent statesman who had been the foremost 
genius of the Federalist party and who was now about 
to render through it his last great public service, though 
at the cost of his life. Henry Croswell, editor of 
the Balance, a Federalist paper at Hudson, had been 
convicted because Chief-Justice Morgan Lewis, before 
whom he was tried, had persisted in the old English 
rule of refusing to let the defendant prove the truth of 
the alleged libel. Appeal for a new trial was made, and 
Alexander Hamilton, then easily the foremost lawyer 
in the United States, went to Albany to argue in Cros- 
well's behalf. His argument on that occasion was 
esteemed by Chancellor Kent as the greatest he ever 
made. It was indeed one of the most powerful appeals 
for the liberty of the press and for the rights of juries 
that ever were made by anyone, anywhere. It was 
fruitless before the court, which persisted in its former 
ruling. But it moved the Legislature at an early oppor- 
tunity to embody his pleadings in the statute law by 
enacting the sound American principle that in suits for 
damages for libel the truth of the alleged libel might be 
pleaded and proved in defense, and that the jury should 
be the judges of both the law and the facts. 

It was while Hamilton was at Albany on this errand 
that the Federalists held a private conference at Lewis's 



242 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Tavern in that city to determine their course in the 
contest between Lansing and Burr. Their advance pur- 
pose was, as stated, to support Burr. But Hamilton 
would have none of it. Three years before he had 
similarly intervened in a Democratic conflict, and had 
by his personal authority secured the election of Jeffer- 
son over Burr as President, because, as he wrote to 
Gouverneur Morris, Burr had "no principles, public 
or private; and . . . will use the worst portion of 
the community as a ladder to climb to permanent power 
and an instrument to crush the better part. He is," he 
continued, "sanguine enough to hope everything, daring 
enough to attempt everything, wicked enough to scruple 
nothing." That was Hamilton's just estimate of Burr 
in 1801, and it remained his estimate of him, confirmed 
by subsequent events, in 1804. 

There had indeed been one event, only a short time 
before and not yet althogether ended, which immeasur- 
ably intensified Hamilton's opposition to Burr. That 
was that inexplicably stupid and wicked design of some 
New England Federalists, led by Senator Pickering : 
who had been Secretary of State in Adams's cabinet 
and who was afterward the chief spirit of the Hartford 
Convention, to dissolve the Union and to set up a 
Federalist republic consisting of the New England 
States, New York, and New Jersey, with Burr as its 
President! A more detestable scheme was never con- 
cocted. But it was vigorously urged, especially by 
Pickering and Roger Griswold, at the beginning of 
1804; and there can be little if any doubt that the 
conspirators were in conference with the Federalist 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 243 

members of the New York Legislature, and that the 
design of the latter to support Burr for Governor 
against Lansing was suggested by Pickering and Gris- 
wold as an essential part of their infernal plot. 

This disloyal purpose was imparted by some of the 
conspirators to Rufus King, who of course instantly 
disapproved of it. It was also made known, by Picker- 
ing himself, to Hamilton. What Hamilton replied to 
Pickering is not on record. We can easily imagine it. 
The result was that Hamilton entered the secret con- 
clave of Federalists at Lewis's Tavern with renewed 
determination to thwart Burr. He made a long, cogent, 
and impassioned appeal to the Federalists to support 
Lansing rather than Burr, on both partisan and patri- 
otic grounds. To elect Burr, he said, would be to 
imperil the welfare of the State, and would give the 
Democrats a formidable leader. But Lansing's 
personal character would afford a guarantee against 
pernicious extremes, and his leadership of the party 
would not be so difficult to overcome as Burr's. 

This counsel was intended to be confidential, and 
indeed the conference was supposed to be entirely 
secret. But some of Burr's agents were listening at the 
keyhole, and promptly reported to him what had been 
done, and especially what Hamilton had said. Burr 
therefore realized that it was Hamilton and Hamilton 
alone who stood between him and his ambition. Had it 
not been for that intervention of Hamilton's the New 
York Federalists would have supported Burr and would 
probably have assured his election as Governor. With 
that achieved, Pickering, Griswold, and the rest would 



244 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

have been emboldened to proceed with their secessionist 
conspiracy. But Hamilton defeated the plot. It is 
true that he did not succeed in prevailing upon all the 
Federalists to oppose Burr. Griswold in particular 
held out and in a published letter urged all his friends 
to support Burr and denounced Hamilton for opposing 
Burr purely on grounds of "personal resentment" — a 
most ridiculous aspersion, that being one of the last 
motives of which Hamilton was capable. 

When Lansing retired and Morgan Lewis took his 
place, Hamilton gave his support to Lewis, while Gris- 
wold and the other conspirators stuck to Burr. The 
struggle between the two Federalist factions continued 
and grew steadily more intense down to the day of the 
election. At one time Hamilton, fearful of Burr's suc- 
cess over Lewis, whom he regarded as a much weaker 
candidate than Lansing, thought of putting Rufus King 
forward as a Federalist candidate. He had no hope of 
electing him, but thought that he might command a full 
Federalist vote and prevent a part of it from being cast 
for Burr; but he relinquished that scheme when he 
found that Griswold and his faction would vote for 
Burr even against King. 

DeWitt Clinton, of course, kept up his fight against 
Burr, through the medium of Cheetham's vitriolic pen, 
especially denouncing the methods by which Burr 
sought to curry favor with the lowest elements of the 
New York City slums. It was true that in this cam- 
paign Burr introduced for the first time the devices 
which afterward made "ward politics" notorious. Jef- 
ferson was quoted against Burr, as not being a repre- 



1804] 



THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 245 



sentative of true democracy. All the influence of the 
Clintons and Livingstons, and of Ambrose Spencer, was 
ranged relentlessly against Burr. Hamilton made no 
speeches and wrote no letters, but contented himself 
with using his influence in private against the man 
whom he considered to be of all his contemporaries the 
most dangerous to the State and to the nation. So the 
fight went on until the moment of the closing of the 
polls. When the votes were counted it was found that 
Burr had carried his chief stronghold, New York City, 
by a majority of about a hundred. In the State as a 
whole he was hopelessly defeated. The vote stood: 
Lewis, 30,829; Burr, 22,139. 

Burr realized that his course was run. He had 
staked everything on this last supreme effort, and had 
lost. His anger, resentment, revenge all turned toward 
the man whom he rightly reckoned to be chiefly 
responsible for his defeat. He had never forgiven 
Hamilton for keeping him out of the Presidency in 
1801. For keeping him out of the Governorship of 
New York in 1804 and out of the Presidency of a seced- 
ing republic, he resolved to have revenge at the cost of 
Hamilton's life. For a time he meditated secret mur- 
der, either by his own hand or through that of a hired 
assassin. But from that course he was deterred by two 
considerations. One was the personal peril; the other 
was the lack of the publicity which he craved. So he 
decided upon a duel, in which he could kill Hamilton 
without incurring the penalty of the law, and could 
enjoy the satisfaction of having it publicly known that 
he had done it. Accordingly he set diligently to work 



246 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

to perfect himself in marksmanship, knowing that 
Hamilton, never a skilled shot, was and would be quite 
out of practice with arms. When he deemed himself 
sufficiently skillful, he wrote Hamilton, with Van Ness's 
aid, a studiedly offensive letter. Dr. Cooper, of Albany, 
had written to a friend that Hamilton had declared to 
him that he regarded Burr as dangerous and added that 
he could relate "a still more despicable opinion" which 
Hamilton had expressed of Burr. Referring to this, 
Burr curtly demanded that Hamilton should make "a 
prompt and unqualified acknowledgment or denial" of 
the use of any expression which could justify Dr. 
Cooper's statement. Hamilton replied temperately, 
declining to make either acknowledgment or denial, 
since he had no recollection of the matter and could 
not recall what Dr. Cooper referred to. He stood 
ready to give an accounting for anything with which he 
was directly charged, but he could not undertake to 
interpret the inferences drawn by third parties. Burr's 
response, probably written by Van Ness, was still more 
offensive than his first note. To this Hamilton replied 
formally, and then caused the suggestion to be imparted 
to Burr that he should inquire into the purport of the 
conversation with Dr. Cooper and ascertain precisely 
to what that gentleman had referred in his letter, 
declaring his readiness to meet the result, which he was 
confident would show that the conversation had related 
entirely to political matters. This Burr denounced as 
"mere evasion," and a little later he sent Hamilton the 
challenge which from the first he had planned. 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 247 

Under the "code of honor" Burr was entirely in the 
wrong. He had no sufficient pretext for the challenge. 
But it was necessary, in the state of mind which then 
prevailed, for Hamilton to accept the challenge or 
suffer disgrace. He accepted, but the duel was 
deferred for a fortnight in order that he might conclude 
some important cases in court. In that time Hamilton 
went about his business as usual, while Burr devoted 
himself largely to pistol practice at a target. On July 
4 they both attended the dinner of the Society of the 
Cincinnati, of which Hamilton had succeeded Wash- 
ington as president. Hamilton was the gayest of the 
company, while Burr, somewhat taciturn and moody, 
left before the festivities were ended. A little later 
Hamilton dined with Colonel Trumbull, who had been 
one of Washington's aids; attended a reception given 
by Oliver Wolcott; and wrote an earnest letter to 
Theodore Sedgwick, one of Pickering's accomplices, 
sternly warning him against all conspiracies for dis- 
solution of the Union. The impending duel was kept 
a secret from all but less than a dozen of his friends. 

On the morning of Wednesday, July 11, Hamilton 
and his second, Pendleton, crossed the ferry from New 
York to Weehawken. With his second, Van Ness, and 
Dr. Hosack, Burr crossed by the preceding boat. Ten 
paces were measured out, the pistols were loaded, the 
principals were placed in position, and the word was 
given. Burr instantly aimed and fired, Hamilton not 
so much as raising his weapon. It was enough. Ham- 
ilton fell forward, discharging his pistol into the 
ground as he did so. "This is a fatal wound, Doctor," 



248 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

he gasped, and fainted. Burr and Van Ness inconti- 
nently fled from the ground without looking behind 
them. Hamilton was conveyed to his home, where he 
lingered on for thirty-one hours, giving all his thoughts 
meanwhile to the consolation of his wife and his friends. 
Thus perished that man who, taken all in all, was 
probably the greatest constructive statesman in Ameri- 
can history and one of the half-dozen greatest in the 
history of the world. Chancellor Kent indulged in no 
flight of fancy when he said that "had he lived twenty 
years longer" (Hamilton was only forty-seven) "he 
would have rivalled Socrates or Bacon, or any other of 
the sages of ancient or modern times, in researches after 
truth and in benevolence to mankind." He perished at 
the purposeful hand of that man who, taken all in all, 
was probably the most detestable of all who have 
attained prominence in American history, and one of 
the most detestable in the history of the world. There 
is none so devoid of redeeming qualities, and none 
whose evil deeds were so gratuitous and wanton. It is 
impossible to forget the almost intolerable provocation 
which Benedict Arnold suffered in the injustice of 
Congress and of some of his military associates. He 
should not have yielded to the temptation of that provo- 
cation, yet we cannot forget that the provocation was 
there. But Burr had no such provocation. He had no 
grievance. His wickedness was unprovoked, delib- 
erate, committed for the sheer sake of wickedness, 
because he preferred evil to good. In every relation of 
life he was false ; for even the notion that his love for his 
daughter was the one pure passion of his life must be 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 249 

abandoned in the knowledge that he intended to leave 
her a legacy which would if possible corrupt her mind 
and soul. There may have been others approximating 
him in the promiscuous and unscrupulous gratification 
of sexual lust, but there was reserved for him the unique 
infamy of taking detailed and laborious pains to betray 
and to expose to the knowledge of the world each indi- 
vidual victim of his unclean passion. In many years of 
incessantly active public life he performed not a single 
deed of importance for the good of his fellow-men or 
that is remembered to his credit. In his private life it 
may truly be said of him, in reversed application of a 
famous epitaph, that he touched nobody whom he did 
not defile. 

The one poor consolation which the State, the nation, 
and humanity had for the irreparable loss of Hamilton 
was in the fact that they thus were rid of Burr. For his 
murderous shot at Weehawken destroyed his power for 
evil and ended his public career as instantly and as 
certainly as it destroyed Hamilton's physical life. From 
that moment he was an outcast, shunned, despised, and 
detested. "The damned reptile," was Morgan Lewis's 
only mention of him, and it was by no means the most 
severe. Some of the filth and corruption which he had 
spawned into New York politics remained, to be a 
source of ferment and of poison. Otherwise, he was 
gone. He reappears no more in the history of New 
York. 

Nor have we, indeed, much more to do with Hamil- 
ton. His gigantic genius had not been circumscribed 
by the boundaries of the Empire State. The most 



250 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 



[1804 



illustrious citizen New York has ever had, his labors 
were chiefly performed for the whole nation rather 
than for the State. He had no part in the organization 
of the State, and he held no office in its government. 
His influence upon its affairs and its destinies was at 
times dominant and controlling, but it was merely 
incidental to his greater work for the whole United 
States. 

The one incomparable figure in the first generation 
of New York's history was that of Jay. He was to the 
State what Hamilton was to the nation. But he, too, 
was now forever removed from active participation in 
public affairs, not by death or exile but by voluntary 
retirement to a repose more fully earned by him than 
by any other man of his time. The variety, the 
incessancy, the arduous importance of his labors for 
State and nation during thirty years had exceeded those 
of any other man in either the early or the later history 
of the American republic. He had been legislator and 
executive, jurist and diplomat, advocate and financier, 
revolutionary propagandist and constitutional con- 
structor; he had been one of the three chief framers of 
the Constitution of the United States and practically the 
sole author of the Constitution of the State of New 
York ; he had made the treaty which reestablished peace 
and recognized the independence of America at the end 
of the Revolution, and the subsequent treaty which 
complemented the former and gave America her proper 
place among the nations; he had been the propounder 
of the most significant and important judicial dictum in 
the first dozen years of American jurisprudence; and 



1804] THE SUPREME TRAGEDY 251 

second to Washington alone he had been an unrivalled 
personal force for purity of life, for unselfish patriotic 
devotion, and for the loftiest ennoblements of human 
society and human life. He had passed out of all active 
participation in New York's political and govern- 
mental history, but he had left behind him a beneficent 
influence, incomparable and imperishable. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE NEW ERA 

NEVER, perhaps, was the political leadership of 
a great State more completely transformed in 
so short a time than was that of New York in 
1804. All the great figures of the preceding years were 
removed. Hamilton was dead. Burr was worse than 
dead. Jay was in retirement. Clinton was about to be 
retired to the Vice-Presidency. Robert R. Livingston 
was Minister to France. A new era had come, with 
new men at the fore. Something of the old family rule 
and feuds was still to persist, through the dominant 
activities of DeWitt Clinton. But in the persons of 
such men as Daniel D. Tompkins there were arising 
leaders who had no connection with any of the three 
great houses. 

Morgan Lewis became Governor at the beginning of 
July, 1804. He had begun his career as a soldier of the 
Revolution with brilliant promise, but the promise had 
not been fulfilled and never was fulfilled. He was an 
efficient army officer, and after the war he became a 
competent and fairly successful lawyer. His political 
preferment was due entirely to his relationship to the 
Livingstons, though he justified it by showing himself 
at least entirely respectable as Attorney-General and as 
Chief-Justice. The brilliance of his student days at 
Princeton had vanished. But he was safe and sound, 

252 



1804] THE NEW ERA 253 

industrious and honest. Ability for leadership he had 
none, but he made an acceptable public servant. 

His first act after his inauguration was to convene 
the Council of Appointment, of whose activities there 
was need. By accepting the Governorship he had left 
the Chief-Justiceship vacant. The Council admirably 
filled that place by the promotion of James Kent from 
an Associate-Justiceship, and then filled the latter place 
by the appointment of young Daniel D. Tompkins, who 
only three months before had been elected a Repre- 
sentative in Congress. It was an extraordinary thing 
to appoint so young and inexperienced a man as Mr. 
Tompkins to such a place on the bench, and it is prob- 
ably to be explained by the fact that practically all the 
elder jurists of importance were Federalists. Already 
political considerations had entered into the choice of 
Judges. However, of Mr. Tompkins's fitness for the 
place there was no question. 

There followed two other appointments of a far less 
worthy character. One was that of a Mr. Tiffany as 
Clerk of Ontario county in place of Peter B. Porter, 
who was removed from the office for no other reason 
than that he had been a friend of Burr. It does not 
appear that Mr. Porter was an offensive partisan, 
certainly not that he participated in any of Burr's scoun- 
drelism. On the contrary, he was an excellent public 
servant, whose retention in office was generally desired 
by the people without regard to party. He was after- 
ward a distinguished Representative in Congress and 
Secretary of War in the cabinet of John Quincy 
Adams — a man of parts and character. His dismissal 



254 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1804 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

from office to make room for a comparatively insignifi- 
cant friend of the Governor's was an unfortunate and 
inauspicious incident, though not at all incongruous 
with some of the preceding performances of the Coun- 
cil in that dawning age of spoils. 

The other appointment was in some respects still 
more offensive. It was that of Maturin Livingston as 
Recorder of New York. This man was a Livingston 
and he was the Governor's brother-in-law, but he had 
absolutely nothing else to recommend him for that very 
important office. As a lawyer he was of the third 
class, lacking in knowledge and in industry. In char- 
acter he was not above reproach, some of his indul- 
gences in social pleasures being of at least dubious 
propriety. As a man his temperatment and manners 
made him intensely unpopular. That such a man, 
solely because of family relationship, should be forced 
into one of the most responsible offices in the chief city 
of the State, was little short of a scandal. More, it was 
a disastrous thing for Lewis himself and for the Living- 
ston family, for it greatly displeased DeWitt Clinton, 
who was then Mayor of New York, and led to his hos- 
tility to Lewis and to the whole Livingston clan. 

The Twenty-eighth Legislature met on November 6, 
1804, for the special purpose of choosing Presidential 
Electors, and Alexander Sheldon was reelected Speaker. 
In his opening address the Governor reported the going 
into force of the amendment to the Federal Constitu- 
tion for the election of President and Vice-President, 
which was calculated to avoid a repetition of the 
"unpleasant scene" which had marked the preceding 



1804-5] THE NEW ERA 255 

election. He called attention to the need of a law pro- 
viding for the filling of vacancies in the Electoral Col- 
lege, which the Legislature promptly supplied.. John 
Armstrong's mission to France had caused another 
vacancy in a Senatorship, which the Legislature filled 
by the election of Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell. Much 
attention was paid in the address to the need of reform 
in the State prisons and in the administration of 
criminal law, and the further fortification of the port of 
New York and the development of public education 
were earnestly urged. The Legislature, after choosing 
Presidential Electors and enacting the law for the 
filling of vacancies in the College, adjourned on 
November 12. 

The regular session opened on January 28, 1805. On 
February 5 the Governor addressed to the Legislature 
an elaborate message on the subject of public education, 
in which he proposed that the extensive public lands of 
the State, about 1,500,000 acres, should be devoted to 
the purpose. From their sale a fund should be secured, 
to be put under the charge of the Regents of the State 
University, for the support of colleges, academies, and 
common schools. In response, the Legislature on April 
2 enacted a law setting apart 500,000 acres of land for 
the creation of a fund for the establishment and support 
of common schools. Another law incorporated "the 
Society instituted in the city of New York for the 
establishment of a free school for the education of poor 
children who do not belong to or are not provided for 
by any religious society." A third provided for the 



256 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1805 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

establishment of Union College and for the conduct of 
public lotteries for its endowment. On April 10 the 
Legislature adjourned without day. 

During this year Benson Hobart, the United States 
District Judge for the State of New York, died. The 
succession was offered by the President to Brockholst 
Livingston, who declined to accept it. Then it was 
given to Matthias B. Talmadge, who as a State Senator 
had in 1803 led the bolt in the Legislature in favor of 
his brother-in-law, Theodorus Bailey, for United 
States Senator, against John Woodworth, the regular 
nominee of the Democratic caucus. This appointment 
was probably due to the influence of George Clinton, 
who had become Vice-President, to whom Talmadge 
was related by marriage. It was an unfortunate one, 
however, because of Mr. Talmadge's unfitness for the 
place. He was not of high legal attainments, he was 
more indolent than industrious, and he was a physical 
invalid. His incapacity led a few years later to the 
division of the State into two judicial districts and to 
the appointment of William P. Van Ness as Judge of 
the more important Southern district, while Talmadge 
was left in the less important Northern district until his 
death in 1820. 

The most important controversy of the year 1804 
related to banking interests, which were rapidly 
increasing in importance. Mention has already been 
made of the chartering of the State Bank in 1803 as a 
Democratic concern. Previously there had been organ- 
ized by Hamilton and his friends a joint stock 
Merchants' Bank, in New York, and also by other 




James Kent 

James Kent, chancellor; born in Putnam county, July 31, 
1763; lawyer; served in state legislature, 1791-93; master in 
chancery, 1793; recorder of New York City, 1797; justice 
supreme court, 1798; chief justice, 180+; appointed chancellor, 
October 25, 1S14 and retired at 60, the age limit, in 1823; 
died in New York City, December 12, 1847. 



1805] THE NEW ERA 257 

capitalists a similar concern known as the Mercantile 
Company, at Albany. These private banks applied for 
charters, which were refused, largely, it was believed, 
because of the opposition of the State Bank, whose 
promoters had at first promised to support the appli- 
cations. The Merchants' Bank renewed its application 
for a charter in 1804. But the Legislature, influenced 
by DeWitt Clinton and others interested in the Man- 
hattan Company, again refused it. Nor was the 
Legislature content with mere refusal. It enacted a bill 
forbidding the conduct of the banking business by 
unincorporated concerns, under heavy penalties, and 
declaring all notes or other securities issued by them to 
be void of value. The Merchants' Bank of New York 
and the Mercantile Company of Albany, which though 
without charters were conducting an extensive, profit- 
able, and stable business, were notified to retire there- 
from on or before the first Tuesday of May, 1 805, under 
peril of the full penalty of the law. 

A bitter controversy raged over this matter during the 
year, and was continued in the next Legislature, in 1805, 
when the Merchants' Bank renewed its application for a 
charter. DeWitt Clinton opposed the granting of the 
charter on the ostensible ground that two banks were 
sufficient for the business needs of New York and that 
the creation of a third would be contrary to public 
interest. His real reasons were, however, doubtless 
that he wished to prevent competition with his own 
Manhattan Company, and that, as declared frankly by 
the Democratic press, he did not want any more Fed- 
eralist banks started. Governor Lewis, on the other 



258 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1805 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

hand, favored granting the charter to the Merchants' 
Bank. He did not agree with Clinton's narrow 
partisanship, he had a more adequate estimate of the 
growing needs of business, and he had above all a truer 
sense of justice to the company concerned. The Mer- 
chants' Bank had begun its career under the sanction of 
the law in good faith, had invested large sums of 
money in a building and in other operations, and was 
conducting its business in an honest and trustworthy 
manner, and it ought, therefore, to have been permitted 
to continue its existence. 

When the matter came up in the Legislature of 1805, 
Clinton sent Maturin Livingston to Albany to argue 
with the Legislature against granting the charter. But 
no sooner had he reached the capital than he changed 
sides and became a strong advocate of the Merchants' 
Bank and its application. It does not appear that he 
was corruptly influenced, though his integrity was not 
of a fiber so robust as to be always superior to suspicion. 
Neither can we be assured that he acted on principle 
and conviction of justice. It seems probable that he was 
influenced by the Governor, to whom he was closely 
related and to whom he owed his official position. His 
arguments, together with the strongly-exerted influence 
of the Governor, apparently sufficed to secure the 
granting of the charter by a considerable majority, 
composed of all the Federalists and many Democrats, 
though a little later the prevalence of other influences 
was disclosed. 

From the Legislature the bill went before the Council 
of Revision, and there the conflict was renewed with 



1805] THE NEW ERA 259 

added violence. Justice Ambrose Spencer vigorously 
opposed the measure and moved for the vetoing of it. 
His first ground was, that another bank was not needed 
in New York, and that the establishment of it would 
be prejudicial to public interest. That was a weak 
ground, the validity of which was generally discredited. 
But the second was more formidable. He charged that 
the passage of the bill had been procured through 
bribery and corruption of members of the Legislature. 
Thus, in the Senate it had passed by a vote of 14 to 12. 
One of the 14 was Ebenezer Purdy, who, Justice 
Spencer declared, had been bribed by the Merchants' 
Bank. Had Purdy voted against the charter, as he 
would have done but for the bribe, it would have been 
defeated. This serious charge was based upon the 
affidavits of Messrs. German and Thorn, Democratic 
members of the Assembly, to the effect that Purdy ha 
offered them large compensation for their votes if they, 
would cast them in favor of the bill, and had told them 
that he had been persuaded to favor the charter at a 
confidential conference with the directors of the Mer- 
chants' Bank. Justice Spencer argued, with much 
force, that for the Council of Revision to ignore these 
scandalous circumstances, and to sanction a measure 
thus tainted with corruption, would be subversive of 
pure legislation and a reproach to the government of 
the State. 

There was no question of Justice Spencer's* sincerity. 
Neither, unhappily, was there much doubt of the truth 
of the charges against Senator Purdy, who presently 
resigned his seat in order to escape an investigation. 



260 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1805 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Resignation, as Webster said of suicide, was confession. 
Nevertheless the Council of Revision declined to veto 
the bill, and the charter was thus granted. There was 
and can be, of course, no thought that the Council was 
animated by improper motives, any more than that 
Governor Lewis was corrupted by the bank directors. 
Chief-Justice Kent was of all men one of the purest and 
most incorruptible. He was also one of the most 
inclined to take a broad and catholic view of the case 
and to favor the chartering of the bank on the grounds 
of equity which had been set forth by Maturin Living- 
ston, and of the rapidly growing needs of the business 
of the metropolis. The Governor was already strongly 
committed to the charter. Justices Brockholst Living- 
ston and Smith Thompson were members of the 
Livingston family, and therefore stood with the Gov- 
ernor and against DeWitt Clinton; and Chancellor 
Lansing stood with them. Thus the Merchants' Bank 
won its charter, though with an ineffaceable taint upon 
it; and thus an irremediable breach, though as yet not 
openly recognized, was created between the Clinton and 
Livingston clans. 

Closely following upon these transactions came the 
April elections of 1805. Senator Broome having been 
elected Lieutenant-Governor, his seat was vacated, and 
DeWitt Clinton was put forward to fill it; Ezra 
L'Hommedieu also being nominated for reelection 
from the same (Southern) district. General Bailey, 
who had become postmaster of New York, was chair- 
man of the convention which nominated these candi- 
dates, and he and his associates made it clear that they 



1805] THE NEW ERA 261 

specially favored Messrs. Clinton and L'Hommedieu 
because that charter had been corruptly secured but 
partly, and chiefly, because "a new bank has been 
created in our city and its charter granted to political 
enemies"! Both these candidates were elected, as were 
the Democratic candidates generally throughout the 
State. In the Eastern district there was a serious split 
in that party over a Senatorship. Joseph C. Yates, 
afterward Governor of the State, was regularly nom- 
inated, at Schenectady, but the Democrats of Albany 
refused to accept him and named Mr. Quackenboss 
instead. DeWitt Clinton's influence was given to 
Quackenboss, and he received the majority of Demo- 
cratic votes ; but all the Federalists, having no candidate 
of their own, voted for Yates and thus elected him. 
The Democrats secured an overwhelming majority in 
the Assembly, a circumstance which proved more 
mischievous than beneficial to them. 

Soon after the election open war began in the press 
between Clinton and Lewis. Clinton's New York 
organ, the American Citizen, and the Register of 
Albany, which also was friendly to him, began a series 
of persistent attacks upon the Governor and all his 
friends. Burr's paper in New York, the Chronicle, 
was merged with the Poughkeepsie Journal, and that 
paper, edited by Isaac Mitchell and probably controlled 
by Dr. Tillotson, the Secretary of State, led a furious 
counter-attack upon DeWitt Clinton and all his friends, 
especially Justice Spencer; in which it was seconded by 
the Plebeian, an Ulster county paper directed by Jesse 
Buel, afterward editor of the Albany Argus. This 



262 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1805 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

controversy, which became exceedingly acrimonious, 
was begun by Clinton's friends, presumably at Clinton's 
own incitement, Lewis never manifesting any animosity 
toward Clinton until the latter had attacked him. 
Doubtless Clinton resented Lewis's appointment of his 
own friends and relatives to office; yet considering his 
own record he was the last man in the State who should 
have made that a cause of conflict. 

It is difficult to avoid the conviction that the quarrel 
was deliberately forced by DeWitt Clinton for the sake 
of overthrowing the power of the Livingston family 
and making himself supreme. To that end Clinton 
began making overtures to some of the former adherents 
of Burr, among whom there were men of character and 
influence, such as John Swartwout, with whom Clinton 
had fought a duel, and Peter Irving, brother of Wash- 
ington Irving and editor of Burr's Morning Chronicle. 
There were not enough of them, with their followers, to 
maintain a formidable party organization of their own, 
and they had no leader since the downfall of Burr. But 
they would be an important accession to some other 
party or faction. To exactly what extent overtures 
were made to them by Clinton, and indeed also by some 
Federalists, is not to be ascertained, but that some were 
made is not to be doubted. A few years later Matthew 
L. Davis of New York addressed a series of open letters 
to DeWitt Clinton explicitly charging that in Decem- 
ber, 1805, Levi McKean, of Poughkeepsie, a Burrite, 
had informed his friends that proposals had been made 
"by the Clintonians to form a union with the Burrites" ; 
that Clinton, Swartwout, Peter Irving, Davis, General 



1805] THE NEW ERA 263 

Bailey, and Ezekiel Robins had participated in a direct 
personal conference, in which such union was fully 
agreed upon; and that under the terms of the union 
Burr was to be recognized as a member of the Demo- 
cratic party, that Clinton's paper, the American 
Citizen, should stop attacking Burr and his friends and 
should recognize them as having all along been good 
Democrats, and that Burr's friends should be as eligible 
to office as the Clintonians. 

Clinton promptly denied the truth of all these state- 
ments and announced that he would begin suit against 
the publisher of them for libel, the name of the writer 
of them not being at the time disclosed. The publisher 
cheerfully responded that he was quite ready for the 
suit, and that he purposed in defense to prove the truth 
of all the allegations. It was significant that the suit 
was not pressed, but that Clinton let the matter drop. 
The impression was thus i rresistibly conveyed that there 
was some truth in Davis's charges, which Clinton was 
reluctant to have judicially proved. That there was 
also much exaggeration is not to be doubted. Davis 
was an intense and probably not over-scrupulous 
partisan, and there is reason to suspect that he was 
endeavoring to damage the standing of Clinton with the 
masses of the Democratic party who were implacably 
hostile to Burr and all his works. But it seems to be 
certain that Clinton's close friend, General Bailey, had 
conference with Burr's friend Swartwout, that Clinton 
himself had at least one conference with Swartwout, 
that several of the leaders of both factions had a cordial 



264 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1805-6 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

meeting, and that a considerable loan was made by the 
Manhattan Bank, which was under Clinton's control, 
to a leader of the Burrites. 

Four days after the meeting of the leaders just 
referred to, which occurred at Dyde's Hotel, a much 
larger meeting of protest against it and of denunciation 
of the reported union was held at Martling's Long 
Room, in New York, then the headquarters of the Tam- 
many Society, participated in by some of Burr's fol- 
lowers and by a larger number of Democrats, and prob- 
ably incited by the friends of Governor Lewis. At this 
meeting a new Democratic faction was formed, which 
for a time was known throughout the State as Martling 
Men, but which in fact was practically identical with 
the Tammany Society. DeWitt Clinton, apparently 
foreseeing its importance, made haste to try to placate 
it, and wrote from Albany to his friend Bailey repudi- 
ating the former meeting at Dyde's Hotel and approv- 
ing the utterances of the meeting at Martling's. But 
this was in vain. The new faction was inexorably 
opposed to Clinton and persisted in its hostility until 
for a time it drove him from power and office. 

Thus the stage was set for the opening of the drama 
at Albany when the Legislature met in January, 1806. 
It must be confessed that both Clinton and Lewis were 
making mistakes, as both afterward had cause to realize 
and to regret. In favoring the granting of a charter to 
the Merchants' Bank the Governor undoubtedly 
offended the majority of his party, and by persisting in 
that course after the bribery scandal had been exposed 
he outraged non-partisan public opinion. We may 



1806] THE NEW ERA 265 

sympathize with his resentment at Clinton's autocratic 
airs, but must recognize his folly in playing into Clin- 
ton's hand by giving him a plausible pretext for an open 
right. As a matter of tactics and prudence he should 
have realized that the power of the Livingstons was 
rapidly waning while that of the Clintons was unim- 
paired if not increasing, and that alliance was his true 
policy rather than war. For Robert R. Livingston had 
retired from politics almost as completely as Jay; 
Edward had gone to Louisiana ; Brockholst was getting 
ready to go upon the bench of the Supreme Court of 
the United States ; and Maturin was a negligible factor. 
As for the relatives by marriage, John Armstrong had 
taken Robert R. Livingston's place in France; Smith 
Thompson was unwilling to take any part in party or 
factional fights; and Dr. Tillotson had no capacity for 
leadership or the exertion of material influence. As 
for Lewis himself, his capacity for leadership was 
equally slight. 

DeWitt Clinton, on the other hand, erred in impa- 
tience. He had only to sit still, and everything would 
have come to him. But his aggressive and imperious 
nature would brook no delay. He preferred to fight, 
even to force the fighting when there was no need of it 
and when prudence counselled Fabian tactics. In this 
way he incurred unnecessary animosity. He roused up 
against himself an opposition which for a long time 
overcame him. He established precedents which in 
after years came back to plague him. He compelled 
himself in time to seek alliances and bargains which 
were discreditable to him. He was one of the most 



266 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1806 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

forceful and efficient figures in all the history of the 
State, but he was his own worst enemy through his 
arrogance and intolerance. 

The Twenty-ninth Legislature met on January 28, 
1806, and Dr. Alexander Sheldon was again chosen 
Speaker of the Assembly. In his address the Governor 
dwelt first upon the threatening aspect of the foreign 
affairs of the nation and the urgent need of additional 
preparations for defense, both in coast and harbor 
fortifications and in improvement of the militia system. 
Under the lead of a Senate committee of which DeWitt 
Clinton was chairman the Legislature promptly 
responded by appropriating $62,000, with which the 
Governor should purchase ordnance and supplies. 
Attention was also paid in the address to public health, 
reform of the criminal law relating to murder and 
manslaughter, the maintenance of the botanic garden of 
Dr. David Hosack — which afterward became the 
foundation of the wealth of Columbia College and Uni- 
versity, — and the desirability of enacting general laws 
for the incorporation of companies and societies so as 
to avoid the multiplicity of private acts which were 
encumbering the statute books. 

Much amusement was afforded to the journalistic 
and other wits of the day by the Governor's well mean- 
ing but naive and over-solemn discussion of the need of 
drummers as a part of the military equipment of the 
State. Apparently this was, to him, one of the most 
pressing issues of the day. "The drum," he said, "is all 
important in the day of battle. It may decide the fate 
of an army." Therefore he earnestly recommended the 



1806] THE NEW ERA 267 

adoption of measures to "insure a competent number of 
persons skilled in the martial exercise of that instru- 
ment." 

When, early in the session, the Assembly elected a 
new Council of Appointment, a "new departure" was 
established, over which a sharp controversy arose 
between the friends of the Governor and the partisans 
of DeWitt Clinton. Thitherto it had been the rule for 
a member of the Council for each district of the State 
to be selected by the members of Assembly from that 
district. But at this time DeWitt Clinton was doubtful 
of the support of the members of Assembly from his 
own district, the Southern, while he was sure of the 
support of the Assembly as a whole. He therefore had 
the four members of the Council selected by a general 
caucus of all the Democratic members of Assembly, 
with the result that he himself was chosen from the 
Southern district, with Robert Johnson from the 
Middle, Adam Comstock from the Eastern, and Henry 
Huntington from the Western. This gave great dissat- 
isfaction to the Governor and his friends, who saw in it 
the complete control of State patronage by DeWitt 
Clinton. That was of course the purpose of the proce- 
dure, and the effect was soon made manifest. When the 
new Council met on March 26, the work of making 
another "clean sweep" of the offices was undertaken. 
Maturin Livingston was removed from the New York 
Recordership and was replaced by Pierre C. Van Wyck. 
This was a change for the better, since Livingston had 
never been fit for the place; but it was not so much 
because he was unfit as because he was a Livingston, 



268 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1806 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

which family Clinton was determined to expel from 
power and office. Next, Thomas Tillotson, a brother- 
in-law of the Livingstons, was removed from the office 
of Secretary of State, and Elisha Jenkins was put into 
his place. For this change there was no possible reason 
save that of Clinton's hostility to the Livingstons. 
Archibald Mclntyre, a partisan of Clinton's but a most 
excellent public servant, was made Comptroller in 
Jenkins's place. 

Following these major changes, the Council pro- 
ceeded to fill the minor offices throughout the State, so 
far as possible, with friends of Clinton and enemies of 
the Governor. County officers, such as Judges, Clerks, 
Sheriffs, and Surrogates, and Justices of the Peace, were 
all chosen on factional grounds. Against this the Gov- 
ernor protested, and he was supported in his protest by 
Mr. Huntington, who, though a friend and partisan of 
Clinton's, was opposed to the spoils system. But such 
opposition was in vain. Clinton, Johnson, and Comstock 
formed a majority of the Council, and under the rule 
which Clinton had secured from the Constitutional 
convention of 1801 they were able to make and to con- 
firm appointments over the head of the Governor and 
his one supporter. It was a further step in that spoils 
system in which New York was at that time almost 
unique among the States of this Union. 

While these things were being done by the Council 
of Appointment, Clinton's war against Lewis and the 
Livingstons was also waged in the Legislature. On the 
motion of Clinton's close- friend, Richard Riker, of 
New York, a bill was introduced and enacted making 



1806] THE NEW ERA 269 

it a crime punishable with heavy fine and imprison- 
ment for anybody to promise, offer, or give to any mem- 
ber of either house of the Legislature money, goods, or 
other consideration for the influencing of his vote, and 
making it also a high misdemeanor similarly punish- 
able for any member to accept such consideration. 
There can be no question that this was an entirely 
proper and desirable law. Neither, however, can 
there be any question that it was suggested by the 
charges of bribery in connection with the Merchants' 
Bank charter, and that it was adopted not merely 
through legitimate and laudable detestation of bribery 
but also, and perhaps more directly, in order to fasten 
odium upon the Governor's friends and even upon the 
Governor himself, though of course there was no 
thought that he had been implicated in the corruption. 
Clinton himself introduced a resolution into the State 
Senate providing for the expulsion of Ebenezer Purdy, 
on the ground that he had accepted a bribe from the 
Merchants' Bank people and had in turn tried to bribe 
others. There was no doubt of the passage of the 
resolution or of the expulsion of the offending 
Senator. But Purdy forestalled such action by 
resigning his seat before the resolution could be 
adopted. He was apparently permitted to resign 
without opposition, and as the bill for the punishment 
of bribery had not yet been enacted he was perforce 
permitted to go unscathed for his gross misdemeanor. 
It was impossible to regard him as as innocent victim 
of partisan persecution. His guilt was seriously 
doubted by nobody. Yet in the exacerbated state of 



270 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1806 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

factional sentiment his practically enforced retirement 
from the Senate was looked upon not so much as a 
purging of that body of unworthy membership as just 
another stroke in the battle between Clinton and Lewis. 

The Legislature adjourned without day on April 7, 
and the battle was then transferred to the hustings. 
Both sides prepared for a vigorous battle at the April 
elections. Had the contest remained between the two 
factions of the Democratic party, it is quite probable 
that Clinton would have won. Despite his faults of 
temperament, he was a far more forceful, adroit, and 
resourceful party leader than Lewis or any other man 
on the Livingstonian side. But it did not thus remain. 
The Federalists took a hand in it. They had thus far 
held aloof, quite willing for the two Democratic 
factions to fight and if possible to destroy each other. 
But in the elections they determined to give active sup- 
port to Lewis. They had no hope of winning with their 
own candidates, wherefore they would aid Lewis's. 
That was because they saw in Lewis a much weaker 
leader than Clinton, and therefore one more easily to be 
overthrown. If they could beat Clinton with Lewis 
they might in turn overthrow Lewis, while if Clinton 
should win they would have little hope of dislodging 
him from power. 

In counties where they felt sure of success with their 
own candidates, therefore, they supported such candi- 
dates and succeeded in electing a considerable number 
of them. Elsewhere, they cast their votes for the 
friends of Lewis. This was a plan of campaign which 
became characteristic of New York politics, and which 



1806] THE NEW ERA 271 

has frequently been pursued even down to the present 
time. In 1806 it was successful. Clinton indeed 
secured a small majority of the Democratic members. 
But a fusion of Lewis's friends and the Federalists 
formed a majority of the Legislature. In this campaign 
the most efficient leader of the Federalists was William 
W. Van Ness, a cousin of the William P. Van Ness 
who had been Burr's closest friend — a man of much 
ability and of consummate shrewdness in practical 
politics, as well as of exceptional social charm and 
"personal magnetism." 

After the State elections the two factions rested on 
their arms for a time, anticipating the renewal of the 
war in the next session of the Legislature. Meanwhile, 
however, some vigorous local operations occurred in 
New York City. Although this was DeWitt Clinton's 
home, it also was the home of his most implacable and 
efficient foes, and the latter were in the Democratic 
party almost as numerous as his friends. It was here 
that the cooperation, alliance, or fusion between the 
Federalists and Lewis's faction of the Democracy was 
most marked and most successful. The result was that 
this fusion gained control of the Common Council of 
the city by a substantial majority, and forthwith pro- 
ceeded to effect another "clean sweep," turning out of 
office every friend of Clinton, from the City Comp- . 
troller down, and putting in their places friends of 
Lewis and Federalists. There was no pretense that this 
was done for any other than partisan reasons. 

It was during these campaigns of 1806 that Lewis's 
faction of the Democracy obtained the popular name 



272 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1807 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

of "Quids." The origin of this appellation has been 
variously ascribed, but it appears to have arisen from a 
curious exercise of the fondness for classicism which 
then prevailed. It will be recalled that writers for the 
press almost invariably used classic names for their 
pseudonyms, such as "Aristides," "Marcus," and what 
not. So the Clintonians insisted that they were the only 
real Democratic party, the Federalists were the other 
major party, and the followers of Lewis and the Living- 
stons were only a third party or, in Latin, "Tertium 
Quid." This was popularly shortened into "Quid" or 
"Quids." 

The Thirtieth Legislature met on January 27, 1807. 
During the months preceding the various party leaders 
had been busily engaged in preparing for the fray 
which was certain to ensue, with a resolution to make 
it a battle to the death. Clinton controlled a majority 
of the Democrats, but a fusion of the Quids and 
Federalists — of which latter there were eighteen in the 
Assembly — would form a majority of the whole Legis- 
lature. Care was taken, through promise of patronage, 
to make this fusion effective, as indeed it proved to be. 
The first test of strength arose over the election of the 
Speaker of the Assembly. Dr. Sheldon, Clintonian, 
was a candidate for reelection, but he was opposed by 
Andrew McCord, of Orange county, a Quid; and the 
latter was elected by a majority of eleven votes. There 
was a like contest over the Clerkship. The brilliant and 
popular Mr. Southwick was a candidate for reelection, 
and at first seemed certain of success. Everybody liked 
him, and he merited such regard because of his talents 




Smith Thompson 



Smith Thompson, jurist, born in Stanford, N. Y., January 
17, 1768; lawyer; member of legislature, 1800; delegate to 
constitutional convention, 1801; justice supreme court, 1804-14; 
chief justice, 1814-19; secretary of the navy under President 
Monroe; justice United States supreme court, 1823; died at 
Poughkeepsie, December 18, 1843. 



1807] THE NEW ERA 273 

and his cordial and amiable disposition. As Clerk for 
three sessions he had been equally courteous and gen- 
erous to friend and foe. Nevertheless, he was a friend 
of DeWitt Clinton, and that was enough to doom him. 
He was beaten by the narrow majority of six votes by 
Garret Y. Lansing, a nephew of the Chancellor, John 
Lansing, and one of the bitterest foes of Clinton in all 
the State. 

Governor Lewis, apparently thinking that there 
would be enough politics in the session without his 
injecting any, made his address, at the opening, as 
colorless as possible, though not devoid of merit as a 
presentation of State interests. He exulted in the fact 
that New York had far outstripped Philadelphia in 
commerce, recommended encouragement of agriculture 
and the arts and a strengthening of the common schools, 
suggested some reforms in jurisprudence, dwelt at 
length upon the importance of the militia, which seems 
to have been his pet hobby, and called attention to a 
boundary dispute with the State of New Jersey. "I 
have been an eye-witness," he said, "to the state of the 
militia; I have personally inspected nearly the whole, 
and I can with truth assert to you that they have not, as 
I verily believe, of such arms as a soldier ought to have, 
and as our law requires, a musket to every tenth man, 
nor a bayonet to every twentieth ; many are destitute of 
arms of every description, and appear on parade shoul- 
dering a staff in place of a firelock. . . . Nor is the 
deficiency in arms greater than that in colors and 
martial music." 



274 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 8 07 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

It was impossible, however, that the Governor should 
avoid making some reference to the current political 
strife, and he did so on February 1 1 in his reply to the 
Assembly's address in response to his own. He declared 
that he had been "obliged to combat the prejudices of 
some, the jealousies of others, and the passions of all 
whom interest or ambition may excite." If even Wash- 
ington, even after his death, and Jefferson, had not 
escaped odious aspersions, "it were vanity consummate 
for one far inferior to either to hope for universal 
approbation." "Sensible of my own imperfections," 
he continued, "I am willing to believe I may have com- 
mitted errors, but I had fondly hoped they were such, 
if any, as merited indulgence rather than asperity. Con- 
scious that, to the extent of my ability, the public good 
has been the leading object of my career, I have sub- 
mitted to obloquy with no little resignation. The 
approving voice of the immediate representatives of my 
fellow-citizens is, however, an ample recompense, and 
affords a gratification which can only be expressed in 
acknowledgments of your liberality and candor." From 
this it is obvious that the Assembly's address had been 
dictated by the combination of Quids and Federalists. 

On the second day of the session the Assembly elected 
a new Council of Appointment. Clinton discreetly 
avoided being a candidate for reelection, discerning 
defeat for his faction. The result was the election of 
Thomas Thomas, James Burt, Edward Savage, and 
John Nicholas, all opponents of Clinton, and imme- 
diately thereafter the spoils machine was set to work, its 
efficiency heightened by the element of ruthless revenge. 



18071 THE NEW ERA 275 

The first act was to remove DeWitt Clinton from the 
Mayoralty of New York, and to appoint in his place 
Smith Thompson, then a Justice of the Supreme Court 
and a brother-in-law of the Livingstons. Mr. Thomp- 
son, having no love for politics, declined the appoint- 
ment, whereupon Colonel Marinus Wfllett, who had 
been one of Burr's foremost supporters, was named in 
his place. A little later Pierre C. Van Wyck was 
removed from the Recordership of New York and 
Maturin Livingston was restored to the office; and in 
like manner Mr. Jenkins was removed from and Dr. 
Tillotson was restored to the office of Secretary of 
State. Teunis Wortman was removed from the City 
Clerk's office to make room for Thomas Morris, a 
prominent Federalist. Isaac Kibbe, who had been an 
ardent follower of Burr, was made Harbor Master at 
New York, but seems to have been an unfortunate 
choice for the fusionists, since he afterward became a 
zealous lobbyist in Clinton's interest. Wherever it was 
possible the Quids and Federalists reversed the work 
which the Clintonians had done a year before, using 
public offices, great and small, as sheer spoils of victory 
in cynical disregard of merit and of public service. 
The Legislature adjourned without day on April 7, 
leaving the further prosecution of the political war to 
the people at the polls, when a new Governor and 
Legislature were to be chosen. 

It had been the custom for nominations for Governor 
to be made by party caucuses of members of the Legis- 
lature. But in 1807 the Clintonians had a majority of 
the Democratic members and there was no hope of 



276 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1807 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Governor Lewis's renomination, which he desired, 
through that agency. Accordingly, on the first day of 
January, nearly a month before the Legislature would 
convene, Lewis's friends organized a popular Demo- 
cratic convention in New York City and had it for- 
mally nominate the Governor as the regular Democratic 
candidate. This was a "new departure" and was much 
resented by the Clintonians, who denied the right of 
such a gathering to speak for the party, or of its candi- 
date to pose as the regular candidate of the party. 
Nothing definite was done, however, for six weeks and 
more. The Clintonians waited to see what course the 
fusionists would pursue in the Council of Appoint- 
ment. 

The moment the Council removed Clinton from the 
Mayoralty of New York, however, the die was cast. 
Clinton gave orders that a candidate should be put into 
the field who would defeat Lewis at all hazards. The 
evening of that very day, February 6, the Clintonian 
members of the Legislature, being a majority of the 
Democrats, gathered in the Assembly chamber to 
nominate a candidate for Governor. Their quest con- 
fessedly was for the man who was most certain to defeat 
Lewis. But it was not an easy one. There were two 
conspicuous candidates. These were DeWitt Clinton 
himself, and Ambrose Spencer. Logically, one of them 
should be chosen. But to both there was an insuperable 
objection. They were members of the Clinton family. 
The fight against Lewis was to be in fact a fight against 
the Livingston family, which was to be charged with 
filling all possible offices with its own members and 



1807] THE NEW ERA 277 

retainers. In such circumstances it would be fatally 
stultifying to put forward as a candidate a member of 
the Clinton family, against which course a similar 
charge had been and could again be made. 

Both Clinton and Spencer were therefore ruled out 
as ineligible under the rule of political expediency, and 
at the suggestion, if not the dictation, of the former the 
choice of the caucus fell upon a man whom a day before 
nobody had thought of as a candidate. This was Daniel 
D. Tompkins, a young man who, in the Constitutional 
convention of 1801, had stood against the spoilsmen's 
interpretation of the powers of the Council of Appoint- 
ment, who had been elected to Congress, and who had 
been appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
State, in which office his attractive personality had won 
him a multitude of friends. It seems probable that 
Clinton underrated his ability and force of character, 
and thought him neutral and pliable and thus easily 
controlled — in which Clinton was grievously mistaken. 
John Broome was renominated for Lieutenant- 
Governor. Sixty-five members of the Legislature par- 
ticipated unanimously in making these nominations 
and in issuing an address to the electors of the State in 
behalf of their candidates, in which address, it is worthy 
of note, not a single reason based on principle was given 
why Justice Tompkins should be preferred to Governor 
Lewis. 

A few days later the Quids in the Legislature, con- 
cluding that the renomination of Lewis by the New 
York citizens' convention would better be confirmed, 
held a caucus, forty-five strong, renominated the Gov- 



278 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1807 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ernor, and named Thomas Storm for Lieutenant- 
Governor. The Federalists made no nominations and 
committed themselves as a party to neither side. Their 
vote was probably divided. 

An acrimonious campaign ensued. The Quids loudly 
proclaimed that Lewis's candidacy was a revolt against 
bossism, and that Clinton had turned against him solely 
because he would not submit to his dictation. In sup- 
port of this charge the Chancellor, John Lansing, 
entered the campaign with a public statement of his 
reasons for withdrawing from the campaign of three 
years before. It will be recalled that Lansing was then 
nominated for Governor by Clinton and his friends, but 
a little later declined to stand and was replaced on the 
ticket by Morgan Lewis. He now declared that a few 
days after his nomination he had been asked by the 
Clintonians to pledge himself to a certain line of policy, 
that he had refused to do so, and that thereupon he had 
been informed by Dr. Tillotson that DeWitt Clinton 
had made unfavorable comment upon him and had 
displayed letters from a Washington correspondent 
charging him with having intrigued with Burr. For 
these reasons, Lansing said, he concluded that his place 
as Governor would be made very uncomfortable for 
him by the Clintons, and he decided not to accept it. 
DeWitt Clinton and Judge Spencer at once denied these 
statements, and George Clinton, the Vice-President, 
wrote from Washington repudiating them so far as he 
was concerned. 

Mr. Lansing retorted with further charges. He 
repeated the statement that George Clinton, then Gov- 



1807] 



THE NEW ERA 279 



ernor, had tried to exact pledges from him on the 
ground that some of his friends were doubtful of the 
Chancellors political trustworthiness. Governor 
Clinton had also said that he himself was likely to be 
chosen Vice-President, that Mr. Lansing, if he became 
Governor, would have to retire from the Chancellor- 
ship, and that DeWitt Clinton would be a good man to 
appoint to the latter vacancy; to which the Chancellor 
had replied that in his opinion the senior judicial officer 
should be promoted to the Chancellorship. DeWitt 
Clinton replied to this with a heated denial that he had 
ever aspired to the Chancellorship, and further 
correspondence increased the bitterness of the dispute 
without getting any nearer to a settlement. 

The result of the election was closer than that of three 
years before, but it was a sufficiently decisive defeat for 
Lewis. The vote was 35,074 for Tompkins and 30,989 
for Lewis. The Clintonians won the Legislature by a 
considerable margin. 

One more battle over appointments remained to be 
fought during Governor Lewis's administration. 
Brockholst Livingston had been promoted from the 
Supreme Court of New York to the Supreme Court of 
the United States, and a successor to him must be 
chosen. The Council of Appointment was much 
divided in opinion, one favoring Jonas Piatt, another 
John Woodworth, a third Maturin Livingston, and 
the. fourth William W. Van Ness, the brilliant young 
Federalist leader whom the Clintonians had charged 
the fusionists with intending to appoint as Attorney- 



280 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1807 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

General. It was finally decided to postpone the 
appointment until after the election, for reasons of 
political strategy. 

Three weeks before the end of his administration, on 
June 9, Governor Lewis called the Council together 
to make the appointment. He was himself inclined to 
favor his relative, Maturin Livingston, but he could 
not persuade the majority of the Council to commit 
such a folly. After much manceuvering and intriguing 
the choice fell upon Van Ness, who was then only 
thirty-one years old, one of the youngest men who 
ever held such a position. 



CHAPTER XIII 
A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 

DR. JABEZ D. HAMMOND, in his unique and 
incomparable "Political History of the State of 
New York," with an apt touch of the classicism 
which had been so dear to writers and speakers in 
earlier years and which was still much cherished in his 
time, suggests a parallel between the story of the three 
great factions of New York and that of the Roman 
Triumvirs, in which Burr plays the part of Lepidus, 
the Livingstons that of Antonius, and the Clintons that 
of Augustus. The likeness is interesting. Antonius 
Livingstons and Augustus Clintons united to destroy 
Lepidus Burr, with no love for each other save in their 
common enmity to him ; and then the Augustus Clintons 
in turn destroyed the Antonius Livingstons and 
reigned, as they fondly thought, supreme. There, how- 
ever, the parallel ends and a great contrast begins. 
For Augustus Caesar vanquished Antonius by his own 
leadership and mastery, and thereafter reigned unchal- 
lenged. But the Clintons, or, rather, DeWitt Clinton, 
who had become the real head of the house, overthrew 
the Livingstons through the agency of Daniel D. Tomp- 
kins and thereby raised up against himself a far more 
formidable opponent than any he had destroyed. He 
imagined that in Mr. Tompkins he would have a facile 
and subservient tool. Instead, he found for years his 
master. 

281 



282 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1807 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

In this incident DeWitt Clinton made the second of 
the major errors of his distinguished career. The first 
had been his injection of the spoils system into the 
operations of the Council of Appointment, which, as 
we have seen and still shall see, reacted against himself 
with disastrous force. Now he reckoned that as a party 
"boss" he could control as puppets those whom the party 
elected to office. From these two infirmities of a noble 
mind date the twin systems of bossism and spoils which 
for a century thereafter dominated the politics of New 
York. 

This second blunder of Clinton's was not only an 
error in morals but also a grievous misjudgment of men, 
or of a man. It seems at this distance almost incredible 
that he should have supposed Daniel D. Tompkins to 
be a man who could be bent to the will of any other; 
for, young as he was, Mr. Tompkins had on more than 
one occasion shown the possession of singular independ- 
ence and resolution, inherited from his father, one of 
the most indomitable spirits — albeit in a humble sphere 
— of the Revolution; and, amiable and urbane as he 
was, he had made it known that within the glove of 
velvet there was a hand of steel. The sequel was that 
the election and accession of Governor Tompkins 
marked the beginning of DeWitt Clinton's greatest 
fight for political life. 

It will be well to fix in mind a picture of the two 
great rivals, antagonists in perhaps on the whole the 
greatest political duel in the history of the State. 
Genealogically they were contrasted, Clinton having 
"claims of long descent" from the aristocracy not only 



1807] 



A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 283 



of the State and Colony, but of the old country, while 
Tompkins, son of a modest farmer, was essentially a 
"man of the people." Physically, Clinton was of 
medium stature but of unusual breadth of shoulder, 
somewhat saturnine of countenance, beetle-browed, 
with balefire eyes and bulldog chin, the face of an 
autocrat and a fighter. Tompkins was much above the 
usual height, his figure a compound of Hercules and 
Antinous, his face singularly handsome, open, winning 
in its smiling grace. Both faces were true indices of 
temperament. Clinton could doubtless be most agree- 
able to his friends, but to strangers he was reserved if 
not actually repellant. Tompkins was always affable, 
genial, and inviting, though never lacking in dignity. 
Clinton, we may assume, self-centered in arrogant 
pride, imagined severity such as his own to be indis- 
pensable to strength, and therefore mistook Tompkins's 
geniality for weakness — a fatal error of estimate. 

The stage setting of the drama was worthy of the two 
protagonists. Another war was obviously impending. 
The tragedy of the "Chesapeake" had occurred, throw- 
ing the country, as Jefferson said, into such a state of 
excitement as it had not known since Lexington. It was 
on the very day of Governor Tompkins's inauguration 
that the stricken ship made her way back into Norfolk 
harbor. There quickly followed the British orders in 
council and Napoleon's Milan decree, and then the 
embargo. Of course the embargo was a great hard- 
ship to the commerce of New York, and on that account 
DeWitt Clinton instantly and impulsively condemned 
it, and his uncle, the Vice-President, followed his 



284 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1808 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

example, writing and speaking against Jefferson's 
policy with results disastrous to himself, as we shall 
see. Cheetham, editor of Clinton's American Citizen 
newspaper, of course trained against the embargo the 
bitterest batteries of his aggressive pen. 

Such was the situation when, on January 26, 1808, 
the Thirty-first Legislature assembled at Albany, with 
an overwhelming Democratic majority. Dr. Alexander 
Sheldon was reelected Speaker of the Assembly. 
Daniel Rodman was elected Clerk of the Assembly over 
G. Y. Lansing, the former Clerk, by a vote of sixty to 
twenty-one, that division indicating the respective 
strengths of the two parties. 

The Governor's address was practically a declaration 
of war between him and DeWitt Clinton. It began with 
a detailed and forceful consideration of the "Chesa- 
peake" incident and the embargo, and in respect to the 
latter it directly antagonized the attitude to which 
Clinton had committed himself. Recognizing the great 
hardships of the embargo, the Governor argued that it 
was yet a patriotic duty to endure them as a temporary 
expedient in order to avert, if possible, something 
worse, namely, embroilment in the European war. 
Realizing, however, the danger of hostilities in spite 
of this immeasurable sacrifice to avoid them, the Gov- 
ernor urged prompt and generous cooperation with the 
Federal government for the better defense of the city 
and port of New York, and also for the defense of the 
northern and western frontiers of the State; to which 
appeal the Legislature responded with appropriations 
for those purposes, for the construction of a powder 



1808] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 285 

magazine and an arsenal in New York, and for the pur- 
chase of ordnance, arms, and ammunition. The Gov- 
ernor announced that the State's quota of 100,000 men 
in the organized militia had been completed, and that 
thousands more had offered themselves for the service. 
The more adequate compensation of Judges and the 
encouragement of agriculture, the arts, and popular 
education were the concluding topics of an eminently 
statesmanlike address. 

The sentiments of the address with respect to the 
embargo were received by the Legislature with 
approval so cordial that even Clinton could not venture 
to dissent. Accordingly, in the twinkling of an eye, he 
reversed his attitude and gave to the embargo a sup- 
port as hearty as his opposition had been severe. This 
he did, apparently, without consulting or even warning 
either his uncle, the Vice-President, or his loyal editor, 
Cheetham, leaving them to follow him with the best 
grace they could. It was not at all surprising that 
Cheetham resented what he considered betrayal by the 
leader whom he had faithfully served, thinking that 
Clinton might at least have taken him into his confi- 
dence in the matter. He showed his resentment by 
practically breaking with Clinton and persisting in 
opposition to the embargo, thus aligning himself with 
the Federalists against the Jefferson administration. 

For a time, in the matter of appointments, Clinton 
seemed to be triumphant. A new Council of Appoint- 
ment was elected, consisting of Benjamin Coe from the 
Southern district, Peter C. Adams from the Middle, 
John Veeder from the Eastern, and Nathan Smith from 



286 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1808 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Western district; and it promptly set to work to 
turn out the Livingstonians and to fill their places with 
Clintonians. First of all DeWitt Clinton was restored 
to his place as Mayor of New York in place of Marinus 
Willett. Then Elisha Jenkins was made Secretary of 
State in place of Dr. Tillotson, and Pierre C. Van Wyck 
was made Recorder in New York in place of Maturin 
Livingston. Sylvanus Miller was restored to the Sur- 
rogateship in New York in place of Ogden Edwards. 
Many other such changes were made on the very first 
day of the Council's meeting. Joseph C. Yates, sup- 
ported by Clinton, was appointed a Justice of the 
Supreme Court to fill the place formerly filled by Gov- 
ernor Tompkins. Matthias B. Hildreth was made 
Attorney-General in place of John Woodworth, who 
had been a supporter of Governor Lewis. It should 
also be noted that on March 20 Martin Van Buren was 
appointed Surrogate of Columbia county, thus making 
his first appearance in the public life in which he was 
destined to be so prominent a figure. Throughout the 
State there was made a pretty "clean sweep" of all 
officials who were not approved by Clinton. The Legis- 
lature also applied the same rule to the one State office 
under its control. It removed Abraham G. Lansing, a 
most estimable official, from the office of State Treas- 
urer, and filled his place with David Thomas, formerly 
a Representative in Congress. 

There can be little doubt that Governor Tompkins 
disapproved this indiscriminate spoilsmanship. But 
he realized the futility of attempting to check it. He 
had in the Constitutional convention manfully opposed 



1808] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 287 

the pernicious interpretation of the powers of the 
Council of Appointment upon which Clinton had 
insisted, but he had been defeated in that stand and 
there was no recourse but to acquiesce in the result and 
bide his time. 

The Legislature at this session received through the 
Governor a message from President Jefferson dated 
December 10, 1807, in reply to an address which the 
preceding Legislature had sent to him on March 13, 
1807. The Legislature had urged him to be a candidate 
for a third term in the Presidency, and his reply was a 
statement of his reasons for declining to do so. "That I 
should lay down my charge at a proper period," he 
wrote, "is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully." 
Referring to the danger that a too protracted tenure of 
office might degenerate into an inheritance, he added: 
"I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding 
the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, 
should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond 
the second term of office." 

The Legislature adjourned on April 11, after direct- 
ing that its successor should meet on November 1 
following to appoint Presidential Electors. The spring 
elections followed, and in the campaign the foremost 
issue was the purely national question of the embargo. 
On this the Federalists rallied in increased strength and 
made some gains in the Legislature, though the Demo- 
crats retained a strong majority. 

Meantime a greater game of politics was being 
played than that of the State election. A new President 
of the United States was to be chosen, to replace Thomas 



288 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1808 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Jefferson on March 4, 1809, and it had long been 
planned and confidently expected by the Clintonians 
that George Clinton would be the man. Apparently 
the succession of the Vice-President had been estab- 
lished as an unwritten precedent. Adams had succeeded 
Washington, and Jefferson had succeeded Adams. 
Therefore Clinton should succeed Jefferson. For 
months DeWitt Clinton publicly urged such promotion 
of his uncle. Unluckily, he did so not alone on the 
ground of precedent but also on that of opposition to 
the "Virginia dynasty." He pointed out that Virginia 
had had two of the three Presidents and had filled the 
office for sixteen years out of twenty, and urged that it 
was time that New York, by this time second to only 
Virginia in population, and a very close second, should 
supply a President. 

Such tactics on DeWitt Clinton's part aroused hos- 
tility in Virginia and assured the defeat of his uncle. 
A year or two before attention had been called by a 
writer in the Enquirer of Richmond, Virginia, to the 
growing power and apparently boundless ambition of 
DeWitt Clinton, who was a State Senator, member of 
the Council of Appointment, and Mayor of New York, 
and it was suggested that his influence in national 
politics should be combated. Those circumstances 
were now recalled, and in addition it was recalled that 
both George Clinton and DeWitt Clinton had at first 
condemned Jefferson's embargo policy. It was there- 
fore determined to break the precedent. The usual 
caucus of Democratic members of Congress was called, 
to nominate a candidate, but it was called in a some- 




Daniel D. Tompkins 

Daniel D. Tompkins, 5th governor, 1807-17; born in West- 
chester county, N. Y., June 21, 1774; lawyer; delegate con- 
stitutional convention, 1801; member of assembly; justice su- 
preme court; resigned, June 9, 1807 when elected governor; 
elected vice-president United States, 1816; reelected vice-presi- 
dent, 1820; died on Staten Island, June 11, 1825. 



1808] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 289 

what unusual way, hastily and without the knowledge 
of the Vice-President. At this caucus James Madison 
was nominated for President and George Clinton was 
again named for Vice-President. 

This gave great umbrage to Clinton and his friends, 
and also to James Monroe and his friends, he having 
cherished an ambition to be a candidate, and they went 
so far as to try to impeach the regularity of the caucus 
on the ground that it had been attended by only 89 of 
the 139 Democratic members of Congress. Still, 
George Clinton did not refuse to let his name stand as 
the Vice-Presidential candidate. For a time DeWitt 
Clinton seems to have meditated a fusion with the 
Federalists, who were in a receptive mood for such an 
arrangement. Had there been a combination of the 
followers of Clinton and Monroe and the Federalists, 
upon a good candidate, it would probably have been 
successful and Madison would have been beaten. But 
while the Federalists waited the dissenting Democratic 
factions wrangled. The supporters of Clinton looked 
askant at Monroe because he was a Virginian, and 
Monroe's friends declared that George Clinton was too 
old and too infirm to be President. So in the end the 
Federalists nominated a ticket of their own, consisting 
of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, for 
President, and Rufus King, of New York, for Vice- 
President, and all hopes of a fusion against Madison 
were ended. 

Having lost this opportunity, DeWitt Clinton, with 
a strange lack of political shrewdness, made matters 
worse for himself by trying to carry the fight into the 



290 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1808 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Legislature and by insisting that Presidential Electors 
should be chosen who would vote for George Clinton 
for President. This provoked an open breach with 
Governor Tompkins, who openly opposed such a 
course. It would, he argued, exhibit and intensify an 
unfortunate dissension in the ranks of the Democratic 
party, it would offend and antagonize Mr. Madison and 
thus impair the influence of New York in the national 
councils, and it would do George Clinton no good, 
since it was morally certain that Mr. Madison would be 
elected. This was perfectly sound from either a 
partisan or a patriotic point of view. But DeWitt 
Clinton would have none of it. Indeed, he was all the 
more confirmed in his own way through wrath at Gov- 
ernor Tompkins for daring to disagree with him. The 
result was that it was finally agreed to appoint Electors 
without instructing them for whom to vote, leaving 
them to vote not unanimously as a body but according 
to their individual preferences. 

The Thirty-second Legislature met on November 1, 
1808, and as Dr. Sheldon had failed of reelection 
James W. Wilkin was chosen Speaker of the Assembly 
by a vote of sixty against forty-five for Mr. Van Rens- 
selaer, the Federalist candidate, these figures indicating 
the respective strengths of the parties. The Governor's 
address was entirely non-partisan in tone in its reference 
to the choice of Electors, and was chiefly devoted to 
other topics of State interest. Especially did he urge 
revision of the criminal laws, so as to lessen the number 
of offenses for which capital punishment was pre- 
scribed and to substitute imprisonment at hard labor 



1808] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 291 

for flogging in cases of larceny and other offenses — wise 
and humane recommendations, to which unfortunately 
the Legislature did not respond. On November 7 the 
Legislature chose Presidential Electors, and the next 
day it adjourned until the third Tuesday of January, 
1809. 

Ambrose Spencer was chosen at the head of the 
Electoral College of the State, but he proved in the end 
to be the leader of a minority of it. He and five others 
voted for George Clinton for President, and three of 
them voted for James Madison and three for James 
Monroe for Vice-President. All the rest voted for 
Madison for President and for Clinton for Vice- 
President. The result of the national election was that 
for President 122 votes were cast for Madison, 47 for 
Pinckney, and 6 for Clinton; and for Vice-President, 
1 13 for Clinton, 47 for King, 9 for John Langdon, 3 for 
Madison, and 3 for Monroe. The judgment of Gover- 
nor Tompkins was vindicated. The casting of New 
York votes for Clinton for President had done him and 
the State more harm than good, and it was obvious that 
if all the New York votes had been cast for him the 
result would have been the same. 

These proceedings made DeWitt Clinton the storm 
center of New York and indeed largely of national 
politics. He had made enemies on every side. His 
opposition to Madison had increased the resentment 
which that statesman had long felt toward all the Clin- 
tons for their opposition to the Constitution. Clinton 
was suspected and openly charged with being insincere 
in his professions of support of Jefferson, since, while he 



292 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1808 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

had recanted his original opposition to the embargo, he 
had sought and gained a renewal of his intimate friend- 
ship with Cheetham, who remained as hostile as ever to 
that policy. For this same reason he was deemed 
disloyal to Governor Tompkins, since the latter was 
fully committed to support of the Jeffersonian policy. 
The Livingstons and the friends of Lewis were bitter 
against him, and so were all who had formerly followed 
the fortunes of Burr. The Martling Men in New York 
City vied with the others in detestation and denuncia- 
tion of him. 

Had these various factions been able to agree among 
themselves, and to select a common leader, Clinton's 
political shrift would have been short. But just as 
Clinton himself and the other dissenting Democrats had 
failed to unite with the Federalists in opposition to 
Madison, so now Clinton's foes failed to unite against 
him. Governor Tompkins might have made himself 
their leader, but he refrained, although his father- 
in-law, Mangle Minthorne, one of the richest and most 
influential citizens of New York, was the leader of the 
Martl'wg Men and openly manifested the purpose of 
politically destroying Clinton. The spirit of hostility 
to Clinton which prevailed in New York City was 
strikingly shown in an article which appeared in the 
Public Advertiser, an anti-Clinton paper, probably 
under the control of Minthorne, in January, 1809, 
shortly before the holding of a mass-meeting of the 
Democratic party in that city in support of the national 
administration. This article stated that "an abomi- 
nable intrigue" was said to be in contemplation, to make 



1809] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE'' 293 

DeWitt Clinton chairman of that meeting. "A measure 
so obnoxious would destroy the harmony of the meet- 
ing." If Clinton were proposed for the place, he would 
be rejected with disdain. There could be no objection 
to his supporting the administration provided he had 
renounced his errors, especially his connection with 
Cheetham and with the three New York members of 
Congress who had voted against the embargo. In the 
existing circumstances his selection as chairman of the 
meeting "would be viewed as an insult to the public 
understanding." This article was denounced by Clin- 
ton's Albany organ, the Register, as a base libel, since 
it was publicly known when that article was written 
Clinton would not even attend the meeting, for the 
reason that he would at that time be in Albany to take 
his seat in the State Senate. 

The second and regular meeting of the Legislature 
began on January 24, 1809, and continued until March 
30, when it was adjourned without day. The transac- 
tions were chiefly of a routine character, and while a 
new Council of Appointment was elected, consisting of 
Jonathan Ward, James G. Graham, Isaac Kellogg, and 
Alexander Rhea, few changes in office occurred. The 
"sweep" had been made so thoroughly the year before 
that nothing now remained to be done. 

The interest of the session centered upon DeWitt 
Clinton's efforts to rehabilitate himself as the party 
leader. To that end, only four days after the opening 
of the session he introduced a series of resolutions 
elaborately approving the embargo, approving Jeffer- 
son's administration, and expressing confidence in and 



294 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1809 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

pledging support to the coming administration of 
Madison. In support of these he made a long, detailed, 
and very able speech, chiefly devoted to the embargo. 
He reviewed the story of the troubles between America 
and the European belligerents, insisted that it was no 
longer possible to submit to their infringements upon 
our rights, and argued that the embargo was the best 
possible means to which our government could resort. 
In conclusion, with all the bitterness of invective of 
which he was an accomplished master, he condemned 
the Federalists for their opposition to the embargo, 
declaring that, like Milton's Fallen Angel, they thought 
it "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." 

The Federalists met the challenge. They were 
respectable in numbers, and among them were some of 
the ablest men in the State. Their leader in the Assem- 
bly was Abraham Van Vechten, who had declined Jay's 
offer of a place on the Supreme bench and who was 
probably the most eloquent orator and most powerful 
debater in the State since the assassination of Hamilton. 
It was fortunate for Clinton that he and Van Vechten 
were in different houses of the Legislature, for while in 
intellectual gifts the two men would have been fairly 
matched, Clinton, with his quick, stormy temper and 
violent eruptions of heedless anger would have been at 
a hopeless disadvantage before the always cool, imper- 
turbable, self-contained Van Vechten with his 
unrivalled gift of sarcasm and ridicule. Van Vechten 
had in a high degree the faculty which John Quincy 
Adams supremely displayed, of making his opponents 
lose their tempers while never losing his own. A worthy 



1809] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 295 

colleague of Van Vechten's was Daniel Cady, one of 
the foremost lawyers of the State, who closed his distin- 
guished career on the bench of the Supreme Court; 
whose daughter, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was long 
eminent as the leader of the cause of woman's political 
emancipation; and whose name, bestowed as the bap- 
tismal name of an eminent jurist of our own day, was 
always used by the latter in the abbreviated form, 
"D-Cady," on the ground that nobody could be quite 
worthy to bear it in full! Still another able Federalist 
was Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, who had been the Fed- 
eralist candidate for Speaker of the Assembly. Opposed 
to them, on the Democratic side, were Nathan Sanford, 
who was afterward Chancellor; Roger Skinner, after- 
ward a United States Judge; Obadiah German, after- 
ward United States Senator; D. L. Van Antwerp, and 
other men of ability. 

When, therefore, the Federalists introduced resolu- 
tions condemning the embargo and flatly opposing 
Clinton's resolutions at almost every point, a battle royal 
was assured. The outcome was never in doubt, of 
course, because the Democrats had a strong majority 
and the party feeling was so strong that they were bound 
to support the administration regardless of the merits 
of the case. But neither were the merits of the debate 
ever in doubt. Clinton and his friends were no match 
for Van Vechten and Cady, and the object lessons of 
financial depression, stagnated commerce, popular dis- 
tress, and the disappearance of American shipping from 
the seas once whitened by its sails, were unanswerable. 
In the Senate Clinton's resolutions were adopted with- 



296 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1809 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

out the formality of a roll-call, and in the Assembly 
they were passed by a vote of sixty-one to forty-one; but 
at the April election, a few weeks later, the Federalists 
swept the State! 

This startling result was due in great part to the pow- 
erful arguments of Van Vechten, Cady, and Van Rens- 
selaer, who had conducted the debate in the Legislature 
not with any hope of getting their resolutions adopted 
but for the sake of the effect of their widely published 
speeches upon the voters of the State. It was also due 
to the fact that because of the embargo the price of 
wheat had fallen from two dollars to only seventy cents 
a bushel, and other values had been similarly affected, 
meaning heavy losses and widespread ruin to the people. 
For these economic reasons many of the followers of 
Burr and of Lewis supported the Federalist candidates. 
The result was that while the State as a whole showed a 
small Democratic majority, only 731, the Federalists 
elected a substantial majority in the Assembly for the 
first time since 1799. The geographical distribution of 
of the Federalist vote was significant. That party 
carried the Eastern and Western Senatorial districts 
by respective majorities of 534 and 391. Those were 
the parts of the State which had largely been settled 
by immigrants from New England, bringing with them, 
of course, Federalist principles. On the other hand the 
Democrats carried the Southern and Middle districts 
by majorities of 840 and 816, where the influx from 
New England had been comparatively small. As the 
Senatorial districts were thus evenly divided between 
the two parties, the Democrats felt sure that the Fed- 



1809] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 297 

eralist Assembly in the new Legislature would have to 
elect two Democrats as well as two Federalists to the 
new Council of Appointment, in which case the decid- 
ing vote of the Governor would prevent the turning out 
of Democrats and the appointment of Federalists in 
their places — a hope which, as we shall see, was doomed 
to disappointment. 

Following the elections of April, 1809, political 
activity was maintained at fever heat. Both parties 
were chagrined and indignant over the repudiation by 
the British government of the Erskine settlement with 
the United States, the Democrats charging it against 
the British government as a piece of bad faith, and the 
Federalists charging the Madison administration with 
negotiating for political effect with an agent whom it 
knew to be unauthorized. Indeed, as the announcement 
of that "settlement" occurred on the very eve of the 
New York elections, there were those who accused the 
administration of making it as a political trick for the 
influencing of the election. Of course none of these 
violent charges were well founded, though there is 
little doubt that had it not been for the timely announce- 
ment of the spurious settlement the Federalists would 
have carried all four Senatorial districts of the State. 
Political activity in the press was also maintained. 
Henry Croswell, who had been indicted for libel on 
President Jefferson, removed his Balance from Hudson 
to Albany, as the Balance and New York Journal, and 
made it the organ of the Federalists at the State capital. 
Because of its continued opposition to the embargo, 
Cheetham's American Citizen was repudiated by the 



298 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1810 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

New York Democrats and fell into decline, and the 
Columbian was established in its stead as the Clintonian 
organ, under the editorship of Charles Holt, who under 
the Adams administration had been indicted for sedi- 
tion in Connecticut. 

These activities were preliminary to the campaign 
for the Governorship, which was to be fought in 18 1 n 
and which was formally begun in good season. The 
Federalists made the first move. A large party meeting 
was held by them at Albany on January 5, 1810, over 
which Abraham Van Vechten presided and at which 
Jonas Piatt, of Whitesborough, was nominated for Gov- 
ernor. At a later date Nicholas Fish was nominated for 
Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Piatt was a man of high 
character and a lawyer of fine attainments, and was one 
of the foremost citizens of what was then the western 
part of the State. He had been elected a State Senator 
from the Western district in April, 1809. The Demo- 
crats postponed their nomination until after the meet- 
ing of the Legislature, but it was a foregone conclusion 
that they would renominate Messrs. Tompkins and 
Broome, as they did at a legislative caucus on Feb- 
ruary 5. 

The Thirty-third Legislature met on January 30, 
1810, and the Federalists elected General William 
North, of Duanesburg, Speaker of the Assembly over 
William Livingston, the Democratic candidate, by a 
vote of fifty-seven to forty-three, these figures indicating 
the respective strengths of the parties. The Governor's 
address was largely devoted to national and inter- 
national affairs, which were discussed in a dignified 



1810] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 299 

non-partisan manner. Attention was called to the 
desirability of another revision of the statutes, as ten 
years would have elapsed at the next session since such 
a work was performed. The Legislature took favorable 
action upon the suggestion, and the result was the 
Revised Statutes of 1813. The Governor also urged 
fuller support of public education, with the result of 
prompt legislation to that end. The Legislature 
adjourned without day on April 6. 

The most important act of the Assembly was the 
election of a new Council of Appointment, upon the 
composition of which depended the official patronage 
of the State. We have seen that the Democrats expected 
the Council to be equally divided between the two 
parties, giving the Governor the casting vote in their 
favor. Such indeed was apparently the result. The 
Assembly elected Daniel Parrish of the Eastern district 
and Amos Hall of the Western district, both Feder- 
alists; and Robert Williams of the Middle district and 
Israel Carl of the Southern district, both Democrats. 
There were no Federalist Senators from these latter 
districts, and the election of Democrats was therefore 
inevitable. Mr. Carl was a staunch and loyal Demo- 
crat, and a man of undoubted integrity. Mr. Williams 
had been elected as a Democrat, and had formerly been 
successively allied with the Burr, Lewis, and Clinton 
factions. At this time he was supposed to be a Clin- 
tonian. The Democrats regarded him as a trustworthy 
member of their party, and the Federalists viewed him 
in no other light. 



300 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1810 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Immediately upon his election to the Council of 
Appointment, however, he abandoned the party which 
had elected him, and voted with the Federalists on 
every appointment. There is no reason to suppose that 
he was bribed to do this, or that there was any corrupt 
bargain between him and the Federalists, who were 
probably as much surprised at his course as were the 
Democrats. It is true that his son-in-law, Thomas J. 
Oakley, was appointed Surrogate of Dutchess county 
in place of James Talmadge, but Oakley was a man of 
high ability and unblemished character, fully worthy 
of the appointment and quite incapable of being a party 
to a treacherous "deal." But while they did not tempt 
Williams to play the traitor, nor reward him for so 
doing, the Federalists would have been more or less 
than human if they had not profited from it. They could 
not forbid him to vote for their candidates, nor could 
they be expected to refrain from nominating men 
because he was sure to vote for them. The result was 
that the Federalists had complete control of the Council 
of Appointment, and on the very principle which 
DeWitt Clinton had insisted upon — and which Tomp- 
kins had more wisely opposed — they overruled the 
Governor and turned out every Democratic office- 
holder of consequence in the State. At the very first 
meeting of the Council, DeWitt Clinton was removed 
from the lucrative Mayoralty of New York City, and 
Jacob Radcliff, one of the foremost chancery lawyers 
of his day, was appointed in his place. J. Ogden Hoff- 
man was made Recorder of New York, Cadwallader 
D. Colden District Attorney, and John W. Mulligan 



1810] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 301 

Surrogate. Abraham Van Vechten was made Attorney- 
General of the State, Daniel Hale Secretary of State, 
and Theodore V. W. Graham Recorder of Albany. At 
subsequent meetings similar changes were made of 
Judges, Surrogates, County Clerks, Sheriffs, District 
Attorneys, and Justices of the Peace throughout the 
State. "Let no Democrat remain" was the order of 
the day. Meantime the Legislature had similarly dealt 
with the one State office under its control, reappointing 
Abraham G. Lansing State Treasurer — a most worthy 
act. 

It is gratifying to record that, whatever his motives 
had been, Williams received the worthy reward of his 
treachery to his party. The Democrats would have 
nothing more to do with him, but stigmatized him as a 
"Judas," while the Federalists, although they profited 
from his treachery, were equally cold and contemptuous 
toward him. He served to the end of his term, in 
obscurity and contempt, and then disappeared from the 
public view. 

It should be added that during this session of the 
Legislature there were for the first time acrimonious 
partisan contests over the replies of the two houses to 
the Governor's address. The Senate, being Democratic, 
appointed a select committee which drafted a reply 
entirely sympathetic with the address. The Federalist 
minority moved a substitute, strongly disagreeing with 
the address, and a vigorous debate ensued, which ended 
with the adoption of the Democratic draft. In the 
Assembly a Federalist committee drafted a reply which 
went to the very limit of decorum in criticising the 



302 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1810 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

national policies which the Governor had supporte : 
and in condemning the course of the national adm' 
istration. The Democrats moved a substitute favorable 
to the administration, and there followed a debate 
almost comparable with that over DeWitt Clinton's 
resolutions of the year before, and conducted largely by 
the same men. The result was, of course, the adoption 
of the hostile Federalist reply. In his acknowledgment 
of this rampant and rampageous message from the 
Assembly, Governor Tompkins very wisely and 
worthily said: 

"Being desirous that the intercourse between the 
different branches of the government should be con- 
ducted with respectful urbanity and dignified decorum, 
and fully determined that no consideration shall ever 
induce me to depart from that line of conduct, it cannot 
be expected that I should notice all the expressions 
contained in this answer of your honorable house." 

He then reminded the Assembly that it had been his 
official duty to impart to the Legislature his views of 
national affairs, and that he had done so in good faith 
Convinced that the national administration had been 
animated by the purest patriotism, he could not sub- 
scribe to either the justice or propriety of the Assem- 
bly's intimations to the contrary. Finally, he deprecated 
the inculcation of distrust and suspicion, and urged a 
union of exertions in support of the national govern- 
ment "to enable it to repel with energy the aggressions 
of every foreign power." It was the reply of a statesman 
and patriot, as well as of a prudent and far-seeing 
politician. 



1810] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 303 

This controversy was, like that of the year before, 
intended chiefly for effect upon the voters of the State 
at the coming election for Governor. It was Senator 
Piatt, the Federalist candidate for Governor, who put 
forward the substitute reply to the Governor's address 
which was rejected by the Senate. He knew that its 
rejection was certain, but the debate gave him an oppor- 
tunity to make some powerful campaign speeches in the 
Senate. He had effectively answered DeWitt Clinton in 
the former debate, and he expected similarly to prevail 
with the electorate on this occasion. His colleague on 
the ticket, Nicholas Fish, had been a gallant soldier in 
the Revolution and a friend of Washington and Hamil- 
ton, and was one of the foremost residents of New York 
City, where he was recognized as the leader of the oppo- 
sition to that Tammany Society— later known as Tam- 
many Hall — which was already dominant in Demo- 
cratic politics in that municipality. His son, named 
after his close friend Hamilton, was Secretary of State 
in the administration of President Grant. 

Piatt, however, overreached himself. His proposed 
reply to the Governor's address was not so violent in 
tone as that of the Assembly. But it gave his opponent; 
an opportunity to accuse him of partiality toward the 
British, and even — though of course this was exaggera- 
tion — of taking England's side against his own nationa' 
government. It was not DeWitt Clinton who made the 
most effective attack upon Piatt, but John Tayler, 
Senator from the Eastern district. Tayler was a 
veteran of the Revolution and of preceding wars, who 
was familiar with the compacts between the British and 



304 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1810 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Indians and had personally seen many horrors of 
the resulting Indian warfare. He was an orator of 
much dramatic power, too, and this he employed with 
great effect against Senator Piatt, dwelling upon the 
horrors of Indian massacres, charging the responsibility 
for them upon the British government, and then 
declaring that the Federalists were not only partisans 
of that government but actually numbered in their 
ranks former tories who had personally participated in 
the outrages. 

That was too much for Daniel Parrish, Piatt's col- 
league and friend, to endure, and he made a speech in 
reply which was courageous in a high degree and was 
marked with perfect truth and candor, repelling the 
quite unwarranted insinuations which Tayler had 
made. This speech should have had the more weight 
for the reason that ParrisrTs father had been slain by 
Indians in the British service, and Parrish was therefore 
the last man to be suspected of partiality in that direc- 
tion. But Tayler saw in it an opportunity for another 
and deadlier stroke. With far more audacity than 
either sincerity or good taste, he took the floor for a 
theatrical portrayal of the sufferings and death of the 
elder Parrish at the hands of the Indians, in which he 
did not hesitate to indulge in exaggeration and invention 
for the sake of effect, and then, dramatically pointing 
to Senator Parrish, exclaimed in his best tragedy tones: 
"And now, now, I am surprised, I am grieved, to see 
the son of that martyr, my beloved and venerated Revo- 
lutionary friend, pleading in this Senate the cause of 
his father's murderers 1" 




Nicholas Fish 

Nicholas Fish, lawyer and soldier; born in New York City, 
August 28, 1758; served through the revolution; appointed 
adjutant general April, 1784; supervisor of revenue, 1794; 
alderman of New York Citv, 1806-17; died in New York City, 
June 20, 1833. 




William Floyd 

William Floyd; born in Brookhaven, L. I., December 17, 
1734; prominent in ante-revolutionary movements; delegate to 
continental congress, 1774-77; signed the Declaration of In- 
dependence; member of state senate, 1777-78; again delegate 
to continental congress, 1778-84; again a state senator, 1784-88; 
elected to first congress and served from March 4, 1789 to 
March 3, 1791; in 1804 moved to Westernville, Oneida county; 
delegate to state constitutional convention, 1801; again state 
senator, 1808; died at Westernville, N. Y., August 4, 1821. 



1810] A "MAN OF THE PEOPLE" 305 

It was indecent, and it was untruthful. But it was 
effective. Senator Parrish naturally could not restrain 
himself. He made an angry reply, instinct with out- 
raged justice. Before the murder of Hamilton the 
incident would have provoked a duel. But the mischief 
was done. Senator Tayler's utterly unwarranted 
aspersions were published over the State at a rate which 
Senator Parrish's reply could never overtake. A wave 
of anglophobia swept over the State. At the same time 
the repeal of the embargo aided the Democrats, and the 
desperate passion to regain the offices which they had 
lost through the treachery of their own man, Williams, 
roused them to make every possible effort. 

With such spirits dominant, and with such appeals to 
passion presented to the electors, the campaign was con- 
ducted with a partisan zeal never before known in the 
history of the State. But after all, the decisive factor 
in it was Daniel D. Tompkins himself. Had DeWitt 
Clinton been the candidate, he would have been beaten. 
But Tompkins was a "man of the people." His genial 
humanity gave him a personal popularity such as no 
other candidate had ever enjoyed. His Democracy and 
his loyalty to the national administration were unim- 
peachable, yet he had never made himself offensive to 
the Federalists. His temperate and dignified attitude 
in the controversy with the Assembly had won him 
hosts of friends and commanded the admiration even 
of his enemies. His attitude throughout the campaign 
was above reproach. It was therefore due to his per- 
sonality more than to any other cause that he was 
reelected. He received 43,094 votes to 36,484 cast for 



306 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [lgio 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Jonas Piatt. With himself he carried into office a safe 
Democratic majority in both branches of the Legisla- 
ture. The Democratic candidates were successful in 
all four Senatorial districts, and in the Assembly there 
was a Democratic majority of nearly two to one 
making a Democratic Council of Appointment certain. 
In New York City alone the Federalists made gains, 
there electing six Assemblymen to the Democrats' five. 
Among the Senators elected from the Middle district 
was Morgan Lewis, former Governor of the State. 



CHAPTER XIV 
CLINTON'S AMBITION 

THE great victory of Governor Tompkins in his 
reelection should logically have made him the 
most conspicuous figure in the Democratic party 
of New York, and one of the very foremost in the 
nation. But there was another to be reckoned with, 
more truculent, more ambitious, and less scrupulous, 
who had preceded Tompkins in prominence in public 
life and was destined to outlast him. This was DeWitt 
Clinton, who regarded as his own the Democratic 
victory which had been won not so much by him or 
because of him as in spite of him, and who now pur- 
posed to utilize its results in furthering his own 
personal and selfish ambition. That ambition was two- 
fold. One part of it was to be absolute master and 
dictator of the Democratic party in the State of New 
York. The other was, to gain for himself the Presi- 
dency of the United States which he had vainly tried to 
secure for his uncle. 

In the furtherance of this ambition he was confronted 
not alone with the opposition of the Federalist party but 
also with two powerful antagonists within the Demo- 
cratic party itself. One of these was the national 
administration. He had already incurred the hostility 
of President Madison, bestowed upon him in return 
for his own toward Madison; and it was measurably 
intensified as it became more and more evident that 

307 



308 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1810 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Clinton intended to put himself forward as a candidate 
in opposition to Madison's reelection to a second term. 

The other, and more active and violent antagonist, 
was Tammany Hall, as we may now call the faction in 
New York City hitherto known as Martling's Men. 
The two names were not, it is true, precisely synony- 
mous. The Society of St. Tammany, or Columbian 
Order, had been founded in 1789 as a non-partisan, 
non-political, patriotic, and charitable organization, 
thoroughly democratic in character and therefore con- 
trasting with the Order of the Cincinnati, which was 
regarded as aristocratic. Its membership included 
Federalists and Anti-Federalists, "Anglicans" and 
"Gallicans," Hamiltonians and Clintonians. But long 
before the completion of its first decade it was trans- 
formed into an intensely political and partisan body, 
anti-Federalist and therefore Democratic, but also 
strongly Clintonian. It transferred its meeting-place 
to the "Long Room" in Abraham Martling's tavern, 
and thus became closely associated and practically 
identified with "Martling's Men." For this radical 
change, which was assuredly not for the better, but 
which was the beginning of processes which in later 
change, which was assuredly not for the better but 
Aaron Burr was responsible. He was not, it is true, an 
officer or even a member of the Tammany Society. But 
his friends controlled that organization, and through 
them he utilized it to his selfish and corrupt ends. 

By the time of which we are now speaking, Tam- 
many had become a great power in the Democratic 
party in New York City — generally the dominant 



1810] CLINTON'S AMBITION 309 

power. This was owing to its thorough organization as 
a political "machine." It had a "leader" in every ward, 
and under him a leader in every district. It had a 
catalogue containing the name and address of every 
voter in the city, with a note of his political affiliation 
or inclination, and also of the influence — personal, 
social, business, church, or what not — which might most 
effectively be exerted upon him ; and it was the business 
of every district leader to see to it that every voter was 
properly "approached" at election time and the most 
suitable "influence" was exercised upon him. The 
organization also maintained its original charitable 
purposes and practices sufficiently to win for it the 
gratitude and support of many poor people, whose rent 
it paid or whose larders it replenished at the psycho- 
logical moment, just before election. 

Tammany at this time concerned itself chiefly with 
local matters, paying comparatively little attention to 
State and still less to national politics. In its oppo- 
sition to DeWitt Clinton, however, it reached out into 
State affairs, and also cooperated sympathetically with 
the Madison administration at Washington. 

After the election of April, 1810, ensued a period of 
apparent quiet, though in fact it was one of exceptional 
activity beneath the surface, all parties and factions 
diligently preparing for the approaching conflict. An 
unexpected turn was given to affairs in August by the 
death of the Lieutenant-Governor, Mr. Broome, and 
plans were promptly laid by various aspiring politicians 
to secure the succession to him. Chief among these was 
DeWitt Clinton himself. It seemed strange, from one 



310 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1811 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

point of view, that he should be willing and even eager 
to secure an office in which he would be subordinate to 
Governor Tompkins, whom he affected to regard with 
contempt. But the explanation was clear and convinc- 
ing. For the furtherance of his political ambitions it 
was necessary for him to be at Albany in some official 
capacity. He had not ventured to seek election as a 
State Senator from New York, because the local oppo- 
sition of Tammany, which might be fused with that of 
the Federalists, would probably defeat him. But as a 
candidate for the Lieutenant-Governorship he would 
be voted for — and against — by the whole State, and he 
counted on the great following which his uncle had in 
Ulster and other counties "up the State" to counter- 
balance the defection and hostility of Tammanv in New 
York. 

Before such an election, however, it was necessary 
for the Legislature to take action. The Thirty-fourth 
Legislature met at Albany on January 29, 1811, under 
Democratic control. Nathan Sanford, of New York, 
was chosen Speaker of the Assembly, and Stephen 
North, of Delaware county, Clerk. The Governor in 
his address dwelt largely upon the increasingly unsatis- 
factory and ominous character of the nation's foreign 
relations; he recommended provision for the election 
of a Lieutenant-Governor at the next election, in April, 
which the Legislature promptly made; he referred to 
the desirability of revision of the statutes, and of greater 
attention to the public school system; and he announced 
a forthcoming report from Commissioners on the pro- 
ject of canal connection between the Hudson River and 



1811] CLINTON'S AMBITION 311 

Lake Erie and Lake Ontario — a report which was 
presented on March 2 following, and which gave 
Clinton opportunity to secure the passage, on April 8, 
1811, of a bill for internal improvements in the State 
which was the first real step toward the Erie canal. 
A bill was passed on April 9 authorizing the appoint- 
ment of a commission which should report to the next 
Legislature plans for a comprehensive and permanent 
system of common schools; and on the same day the 
Legislature adjourned. 

Meantime the spoils system went merrily on. The 
Assembly elected a new Council of Appointment the 
day after the opening of the session. This body consisted 
of Benjamin Coe, of the Southern; James W. Wilkin, 
of the Middle; John McLean, of the Eastern; and 
Philetus Swift, of the Western district. It was Demo- 
cratic in political complexion, and it promptly pro- 
ceeded to make a "clean sweep" of the offices, turning 
out all the Federalists whom its predecessor had 
appointed and filling their places with Democrats. 
Mr. Hildreth was reappointed Attorney-General; Mr. 
Jenkins, Secretary of State; John Van Ness Yates, 
Recorder of Albany; and DeWitt Clinton, of course, 
Mayor of New York. 

This latter office was immensely valuable to Clinton 
as a political asset. He was himself a rich man and he 
had married a rich wife, while the salary and fees of 
the office amounted to probably as much as twenty 
thousand dollars a year, which in those days was 
equivalent to a hundred thousand dollars a century 
later. Thus he was enabled to live in luxurious style, 



312 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1811 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

and to dispense benefactions and charities on a scale 
which the Tammany Society could scarcely hope to 
rival. If we reckon him to have been the last of the 
great family chieftains in New York State politics, we 
must credit him with having been the greatest of them 
all in the giving of largesse to his retainers. 

He was the first eminent New York politician, also, 
to cater to the naturalized element in the citizenry, and 
especially to that Irish element which already was 
important and which in later years was dominant in 
New York City. To this element his appeal was 
peculiarly strong. He had, as a United States Senator, 
been active in securing the reduction of the naturaliza- 
tion period from fourteen years to five. This change 
enabled the Irish immigrants, who were nocking to 
New York, speedily to become citizens and thus be 
secure against deportation. He had also taken the lead 
in securing the repeal of the Alien and Sedition laws, 
under which Irish political refugees were in danger of 
being returned to British jurisdiction. The Irish 
Rebellion of 1798 had resulted in the flight of many 
Irishmen to this country. Among them was Thomas 
Addis Emmet, brother of Robert Emmet. Under the 
Alien and Sedition laws, not one of them was safe, and 
under the fourteen years' naturalization period their 
prospects were indeed unpromising. But when that 
period was reduced to five years, and meanwhile they 
were freed from the danger of deportation and their 
political asylum was made inviolable, conditions were 
radically transformed. Clinton never lost an oppor- 



1811] CLINTON'S AMBITION 313 

tunity of causing Irishmen to feel that they owed this 
happy change in their status to him, and in consequence 
he won their support to a far greater extent than 
Tammany Hall was able to do. 

As soon as the Legislature provided for the election 
of a Lieutenant-Governor to succeed John Broome, 
in April, 1811, a caucus of the Democratic members 
placed DeWitt Clinton in nomination and issued an 
address to the people of the State in his support. 
Throughout the State generally this was well received. 
But in New York City, despite Clinton's influence as 
Mayor and as one of the richest and most bountiful 
citizens, there was an open revolt against it. Tammany 
took the lead. A public mass-meeting was called, at 
Martling's "Long Room," which that room could not 
contain but which overflowed into the City Hall Park. 
Teunis Wortman, who had been Clinton's aid in his 
fight with Burr, was foremost in convoking it. Mangle 
Minthorne, father-in-law of Governor Tompkins, was 
chairman, and John Bingham was secretary. Strong 
speeches were made, condemning Clinton's candidacy 
and condemning the man himself. Formal resolutions 
were adopted, expressing a belief that Clinton was no 
longer in sympathy with the principles and interests of 
the Democratic party and should no longer be con- 
sidered a member of it; that he had opposed the election 
of Mr. Madison as President of the United States; and 
that he was attempting to establish in his own person 
a pernicious family aristocracy under which devotion 
to his person would be the exclusive test of merit and 
the only passport to promotion. 



314 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1811 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

This meeting then nominated, as Clinton's rival 
for the Lieutenant-Governorship, Colonel Marinus 
Willett. It will be recalled that this officer had dis- 
played distinguished merit in the Revolution, and had 
always commanded high esteem for his personal 
character. His political course had, however, been 
marked with inconsistencies and weakness. He had at 
one time supported Burr, had been a partisan of 
Morgan Lewis, and had been appointed Mayor of New 
York by the Council of Appointment which ousted 
DeWitt Clinton from that office. Still, his personal 
character was so high and his military reputation so 
brilliant that he was probably Tammany's best can- 
didate. Tammany, or Martling's Men, also nominated 
Nathan Sanford, who had been Speaker of the 
Assembly, for State Senator from New York. This 
nomination was significant. For Mr. Sanford was at 
this time United States District Attorney. He had 
been appointed to that office by President Madison, and 
was in receipt from it of an income in salary and fees 
of more than thirty thousand dollars a year. It was 
scarcely conceivable that he would have accepted the 
Tammany and anti-Clinton nomination had he not been 
certain that such a course would be pleasing to the 
President. There were not a few at that time, Clinton 
among them, who saw in that candidacy proof of 
cooperation between Madison and Tammany Hall. 

Clinton was not content with the nomination of the 
Legislative caucus, but sought to have it ratified by a 
citizens' meeting in New York as a counterblast to the 
meeting at Martling's. Such a meeting was formed at 



1811] CLINTON'S AMBITION 315 

the Union Hotel, with Arthur Smith as chairman and 
Hector Craig as secretary. But it was invaded and 
broken up, with much confusion and some violence, by 
a throng of the retainers of Tammany. 

The Federalists declined some overtures for a fusion 
with Tammany, and nominated their own candidate in 
the person of Nicholas Fish, whose fine character and 
talents commanded the full support of that party. 
Indeed, not a few Tammany men voted for him, 
realizing that he was by far stronger as a candidate than 
Colonel Willett. 

The campaign was intensely animated in New York 
City, but elsewhere throughout the State it was con- 
ducted in a perfunctory and languid manner, the 
success of the Democratic party being generally 
regarded as a foregone conclusion. In New York City, 
however, the result was astounding. Clinton, despite 
his prestige as Mayor and despite his bounties and his 
wooing of the Irish vote, received only 590 ballots. 
Colonel Willett, despite his war record and the ener- 
getic methods of Tammany, received only 678. But 
Nicholas Fish, the candidate of the discredited Fed- 
eralists, received 2,044 — a tribute to his personal worth 
and an indication of the disgust which many felt for the 
tactics of both Clinton and Tammany Hall. 

Elsewhere in the State, however, Willett was practi- 
cally ignored, and Clinton polled so large a majority 
over Fish as far more than to counterbalance the result 
in the city; and Clinton was thus handsomely elected 
Lieutenant-Governor. At the same time Sanford 
was elected Senator from New York, showing how 



316 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

prudent it was for Clinton to avoid candidacy for that 
office, and also suggesting that, as already stated, many 
Tammany men, who voted for Sanford for Senator, 
voted for Fish for Lieutenant-Governor. In connec- 
tion with the Senatorship it is to be noted that in 
this year the Democrats changed their method of 
making nominations for that office. Thitherto the 
Senatorial candidates had been chosen by caucuses of 
the Assemblymen from the respective Senatorial dis- 
tricts. Beginning in 1811 they were chosen at county 
conventions, delegates to which had been chosen at 
party primaries in the towns. The election was on 
the whole strongly in favor of the Democrats, who 
elected not only DeWitt Clinton to be Lieutenant- 
Governor but also 73 Assemblymen to only 39 secured 
by the Federalists. The Democratic strength was 
therefore increased above that in the preceding Legis- 
lature. 

The Thirty-fifth Legislature met on January 28, 1812, 
with DeWitt Clinton presiding over the Senate as Lieu- 
tenant-Governor. Alexander Sheldon was returned to 
his old place as Speaker of the Assembly, and Samuel 
North was chosen Clerk. The Governor's address was 
largely devoted to the impending war with Great 
Britain, for which he urged that New York should 
make ample preparation. He recommended the adop- 
tion of measures for the gradual and ultimate aboli- 
tion of human slavery, and the repeal of the law 
authorizing the transportation of slaves convicted of 
offenses; the amelioration of relations with the Indian 
tribes; the investigation of titles to the Onondaga salt 



1812] CLINTON'S AMBITION 317 

lots with a view to preventing private monopoly; 
reform of the public land system; and various other 
measures. The chief topic of an exceptionally long 
and important address was, however, that relating to 
the chartering and control of banking institutions, of 
which we shall hear more in a subsequent chapter. 

The Legislature made a new Congressional appor- 
tionment of the State on the basis of the census of 1810, 
dividing it into 21 districts, of which 6 were to elect 
two Representatives each and the others one each, mak- 
ing 27 in all. The first election under this apportion- 
ment was to be held on December 15, 16, and 17, 1812, 
and subsequent elections on the last Tuesday of April 
and two days following it, in each even-numbered 
year. 

The Canal commissioners reported that Congress 
had declined to grant national aid to the Erie canal 
scheme, but that the scheme was feasible and should 
be undertaken by New York alone if the aid of the 
nation or other States could not be secured. The 
Legislature thereupon continued the commission in 
existence, and authorized it to borrow not more than 
$5,000,000 for the project. 

On March 27 the Governor — for reasons which we 
shall hereafter see — prorogued the Legislature until 
May 21, and on June 19 it adjourned to meet on the 
first Tuesday of November, 1812, for the choice of 
Presidential Electors. Just before adjourning, how- 
ever, acting upon a detailed report of Commissioners 
appointed to consider the matter, it enacted a statute 
permanently establishing a comprehensive system of 



318 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

common schools, under which law the system was main- 
tained for more than eighty years, or until a constitu- 
tional provision was adopted in 1894. 

Amid all these transactions DeWitt Clinton was 
keeping his eye fixed upon the Presidency of the United 
States and was exerting his utmost efforts toward 
attaining that goal. Even bereavement was made to 
conduce to that end. On April 20, 1812, George 
Clinton died, "full of years and honor," and thus 
removed the last obstacle to his nephew's candidacy. 
DeWitt might — and might not — have hesitated to 
accept formal candidacy for the Presidency while his 
uncle was still Vice-President. It is probable that he 
would not have hesitated, or at any rate would not have 
refused, on that account, since long before his uncle's 
death he was an openly avowed candidate for the 
Democratic nomination against Madison, and in all 
probability would have had himself thus nominated by 
the Democratic caucus of New York Legislature long 
before April 20 if the Governor had not, on March 27, 
taken the extraordinary and unprecedented step of 
proroguing the Legislature. There were, indeed, 
many who thought and openly declared that the 
Governor took that step, not, as stated in his message, 
because of complications over bank charters, but chiefly 
for the sake of delaying such nomination of Clinton 
until a Congressional caucus could formally put Madi- 
son in the field as candidate for a second term and 
thus give him the double advantage of being nominated 
first and of being the regular party candidate. 



1812] CLINTON'S AMBITION 319 

At any rate, it was while the New York Legislature 
was thus prorogued, on May 18, 1812, that a Con- 
gressional caucus of seventeen Senators and sixty- 
six Representatives formally renominated Madison. 
Three days later the New York Legislature reassem- 
bled, and eleven days thereafter a caucus of the Demo- 
cratic members, comprising ninety out of ninety-five, 
put Clinton in the field as an opposition candidate. It 
must not be imagined that this action represented any- 
thing like the unanimous judgment or desire of the 
Democratic party of New York. On the contrary, 
many of its ablest members were outspoken in their 
disapproval of it. Governor Tompkins was himself 
cherishing Presidential ambitions, not for that year but 
for four or eight years later, but quite apart from that 
fact he regarded Clinton's candidacy as a mistake, if 
not worse. The Livingston family and its followers, 
still numerous and influential, were arrayed against it. 
Of course all the Tammany Society, or Martling's Men, 
were hostile. Erastus Root was outspoken against it. 
Ambrose Spencer and John Tayler acquiesced in it 
under protest. But Clinton, as was his wont, disre- 
garded all opposition. It was one of his most serious 
defects as a political strategist that, in his own over- 
weening pride, he invariably underrated his opponents. 

Upon two bases he built the tall tower of his hopes 
of success. One was the prevalent resentment through- 
out the north against what had become known as the 
Virginia dynasty. During twenty-four years Vir- 
ginians had filled the Presidency for twenty years, and 
it was now purposed to fill it thus for another four 



320 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

years. That feeling was widespread, not only among 
Federalists but among Democrats as well, and Clinton 
hoped that it would prove sufficient to give him the 
votes of New York, all New England, and probably 
all States north and east of the Potomac River. The 
other hope was that the Federalists, who were still a 
factor seriously to be reckoned with, would adopt him 
as their candidate. In order to secure such support he 
began calling himself an American Federalist, and to 
declare his sympathy with their opposition to the war. 
He had begun by denouncing Madison for not being 
strong enough to wage the war with sufficient vigor, and 
he now promised the Federalists that if they would help 
to elect him President he would immediately make 
peace with Great Britain. He condemned the war as 
a southern device for ruining the commerce of New 
England. 

Early in August Clinton sought a conference with 
John Jay, Rufus King, and Gouverneur Morris, with 
the purpose of organizing a Peace party composed of 
Federalists and Clintonian Democrats, with himself as 
its candidate for the Presidency. The meeting was 
held at Morris's home, at Morrisania, and was marked 
with a frank interchange of views. Clinton denounced 
Madison as incapable of being a satisfactory President, 
and declared upon his honor that he had completely 
and forever broken with him. Yet he did not deem 
it politic to make such a statement publicly, feeling 
that thus he might alienate many Democrats who 
through a more cautious policy might be retained 
among his supporters. The result of this conference 




Pierre Van Cortlandt, Jr. 

Pierre Van Cortlandt, Jr.; born in Van Cortlandt Manor, 
Groton, N. Y., August 29, 1762; studied law in the office of 
Alexander Hamilton; member of assembly, 1792, 179+_5 ; 
member of congress, 1811-13; died in Peekskill, N. \ ., July 13, 

1848. 






- 




Marinus Willett 

Marinus Willett, soldier, born in Jamaica, L. I., July 31, 
1740; served in French and Indian wars and the revolutionary 
war, in the latter commanding the forces in the Mohawk 
Valley; sheriff of N. Y. county, 1784; mayor of New York, 
1807; president of electoral college, 1824; died in New York 
Citv, August 22, 1830. 



1812] CLINTONS AMBITION 321 

was indecisive. King had both before and after it no 
faith in Clinton's sincere devotion to anything but his 
own selfish advancement, while Jay felt a strong 
repugnance to any such bargaining as had been pro- 
posed. Morris had been associated with Clinton in 
the Canal commission and felt more kindly toward 
him than either of the others, but even he was not con- 
vinced of the propriety of making Clinton the Fed- 
eralist candidate. 

At the middle of September there was a meeting of 
several score representative Federalists, from all States 
north of the Potomac, to consider the question of a 
Presidential candidate. There was general agreement 
upon the impossibility of electing a straight-out Fed- 
eralist, for which reason some, whose chief desire was 
to return the party to power by no matter what means, 
strongly urged a coalition with the Clintonians. 
Others, chief among whom was Rufus King, opposed 
such a course and advised the nomination of the 
best possible Federalist candidate. He would not be 
elected, but the party organization would be main- 
tained, its principles would be confirmed, and its honor 
would be untarnished. To support Clinton would 
stultify the party, he insisted; and he recalled that 
Clinton had at first condemned the embargo and then 
approved it and confirmed his approval of it with a 
bitter tirade against the Federalists for opposing it. 
To elect him, he exclaimed, might prove to be placing 
a Caesar Borgia in the Presidency in place of James 
Madison. 



322 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

That was too extreme, to liken Clinton to Borgia, 
and the impassioned utterance reacted against King 
and the cause he was pleading. Harrison Gray Otis 
took advantage of it in pleading the other side of the 
case. He urged that the defeat of Madison was the 
thing most of all to be desired, since it would be a 
repudiation of his war policy and would lead to speedy 
peace. In the end he carried the day. The convention 
adopted resolutions opposing Madison in strong terms 
and advocating the election of DeWitt Clinton because 
of his possession of qualities which assured the country 
of more capable leadership. 

At this time Clinton and his chief supporters felt 
confident of carrying New York, all of New Eng- 
land, New Jersey, and Delaware, and of getting at least 
some votes in Maryland, Ohio, and North Carolina. 
Even in Virginia they thought there was a possibility 
of securing a few. Pennsylvania was in doubt, but if 
it could be gained for Clinton his election would be 
assured. As a matter of fact, Clinton was not sure of 
his own State. The State administration was against 
him, and so was a large faction of the Democratic 
party, led by Erastus Root. The Legislature which 
was in November to choose Presidential Electors had 
been elected in April, and was much divided between 
Clinton and Madison. No fewer than twenty Demo- 
cratic Assemblymen insisted that the Electoral College 
of the State should not be unanimous, but should be 
divided between Clinton and Madison in the same 
ratio that the Legislature itself was divided, which 
would mean at least one-third for Madison. 



1812] CLINTON'S AMBITION 323 

There now came to the fore a new figure in Demo- 
cratic politics, destined to play a leading part. This 
was a young man named Martin Van Buren. He was 
the son of a Kinderhook tavern-keeper, who had studied 
law in the office of William P. Van Ness, the friend 
of Burr, and had later engaged in the practice of law 
on his own account at Kinderhook. After serving for 
a time as Surrogate of Columbia county, in April, 
1812, he was elected to the State Senate, at the age of 
only thirty years, and would therefore take his seat for 
the first time when the Legislature met to choose 
Presidential Electors. Now, Kinderhook was a hotbed 
of Federalism, and the young man's teacher. Van Ness, 
as "Aristides," had been one of the fiercest foes of the 
Clintons and Democrats in general. Nevertheless, Van 
Buren was resolutely committed to the principles of 
Jeffersonian Democracy, and to the principle of party 
"regularity." That he was greatly enamored of Clin- 
ton does not appear. The men were so different tem- 
peramentally that close friendship between them 
would have been extraordinary. Nor does it appear 
that he regarded Clinton as sure of winning and so 
wished to be on the victorious side. But he was a 
strict party man, and since the party caucus had 
declared for Clinton he was for him. 

We have said that Van Buren was very unlike 
Clinton. In manner he was his opposite — suave, 
plausible, ingratiating, politic; a natural manager of 
men So it came to pass that when the Thirty-sixth 
Legislature met on November 3, 1812, this young man, 
entering that body for the first time, was immediately 



324 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

accepted as the leader of the Clintonian Democrats. 
He commanded, too, the confidence and respect of the 
Madisonians, since he had never attacked the President 
or his policy. On the contrary, he had approved the 
embargo, he had approved non-intercourse, he had 
approved the war. He was a "straight party man," 
and if now he was opposing Madison it was not 
because he disapproved him but because he regarded 
Clinton as the regular candidate of the New York 
Democracy, whom it was his duty to support. To that 
shrewd, logical, and doubtless sincere attitude it was 
impossible to take exception. But we must add that 
Van Buren proceeded to promote Clinton's candidacy 
with every trick and intrigue at the hand of one of the 
most skillful political strategists New York has ever 
produced. 

The result of his master-hand was quickly seen. The 
Legislature met for joint ballot, and 74 votes were cast 
for Clintonian Electors and 45 for Federalists, while 
28 Madisonians, led by Erastus Root, refrained from 
voting. That assured Clinton the solid vote of New 
York. Had there been a Van Buren in Pennsylvania, 
Clinton would surely have won. But there was not, 
and that State went solidly for Madison. The out- 
come was that Clinton carried New York, all New 
England but Vermont; New Jersey and Delaware; and 
got five votes in Maryland. These gave him a total 
of 89. Madison got all the rest, a total of 128. 

Clinton was thus defeated in his supreme ambition 
for the Presidency. Nevertheless, he was not without 
consolation. He had shown himself the strongest man 



1SU] CLINTON'S AMBITION 325 

in the Democratic party in New York, able to com- 
mand a majority of its votes and to win a large pro- 
portion of Federalist votes as well. For we must 
remember that the Thirty-sixth Legislature was half a 
Federalist body. The Assembly elected Jacob R. Van 
Rensselaer, a Federalist, Speaker by a vote of 58, to 46 
for William Ross, Democrat, and one for Mr. Hunt- 
ington, and by a similar vote elected James Van Ingen, 
Federalist, Clerk. In the Senate there were 9 Feder- 
alists, 4 Madisonian Democrats, and 19 Clintonian 
Democrats; in the Assembly there were 58 Federalists, 
22 Madisonian Democrats, and 29 Clintonian Demo- 
crats. On a joint ballot, then, there were 67 Federalists, 
48 Clintonian Democrats, and 26 Madisonian Demo- 
crats. The Federalists had a strong plurality, though not 
a majority. But the Federalists had a clear majority in 
the Assembly, and the Clintonians in the Senate. The 
vote by which Clintonian Electors was chosen was of 
course obtained by the casting of many Federalist votes 
for Clinton. Finally, these circumstances assured the 
choice of a Council of Appointment which would not 
disturb Clinton in the Mayoralty of New York, nor 
turn any of his friends out of office. 



CHAPTER XV 
CANALS AND BANKS 

IT was an interesting coincidence that at the very 
time when he was making his campaign for the 
Presidency, in which he met with disappointment 
and defeat, DeWitt Clinton was engaged in another 
enterprise which was destined to bring him after years 
of strife far more distinction than he could probably 
have won in the White House. His interest in the 
inland transportation systems of the State of New York, 
and especially in canals, may be regarded as an inheri- 
tance. We have seen what attention George Clinton 
as Governor gave to the subject, and how frequently 
and earnestly he pressed upon the Legislature the 
desirability of providing for navigation between the 
various lake systems and the river systems — most of all, 
perhaps, between the Great Lakes and the Hudson. 
As a result of his policy, substantial progress was made 
in certain directions. But the greatest undertaking of 
all was left to be effected by DeWitt Clinton, through 
years of strife. 

April 8, 1811, was an epochal day in the history of 
New York. On that day, as we have already seen, the 
Legislature passed an act appointing a commission to 
take into consideration all matters relating to inland 
navigation. It was not a party measure, but was sup- 
ported by the best men of both parties, and both parties 
were represented in the membership of the commis- 

326 



1811] CANALS AND BANKS 327 

sion. The nine men chosen were among the most 
eminent in the State, and most of them were of especial 
fitness for the work before them. They were Gouver- 
neur Morris, DeWitt Clinton, William North, Stephen 
Van Rensselaer, Simeon DeWitt, Thomas Eddy, Peter 
B. Porter, Robert R. Livingston, and Robert Fulton. 
Less than four years before Fulton, who had perfected 
his steamboat under the patronage of Livingston, sent 
his "Clermont" on her first trip from New York 
to Albany; a year later John Stevens had sent the 
"Phoenix" on the first steam voyage at sea, from New 
York to Philadelphia; and at this very time the 
steamer "Paragon" was being built at New York. 
Obviously a new era in navigation was dawning upon 
the world. 

This commission was invested with great powers. 
It was authorized to enter into negotiations with the 
national government, or with the governments of other 
States, to secure their cooperation in the grandiose pro- 
ject of opening a navigable waterway from the Atlantic 
Ocean to the heart of the continent by means of con- 
necting the Hudson River with the Great Lakes by 
canal. It was also empowered to accept subscriptions 
or other aid from individuals or corporations to the 
same end. Should these efforts prove insufficient in 
results, the commission was to ascertain on what terms 
it would be practicable to secure, on the credit of 
the State, a loan of capital for the execution of the 
gigantic work. It was apparent, and was consistently 
urged by Clinton, that the end desired could be attained 
only by means of a canal from the Hudson to Lake 



328 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1811 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Erie. Canals to Lake Champlain, to St. Lawrence, 
and to Lake Ontario would serve some useful purposes, 
but they would not give access to the great western 
lakes. The Niagara Falls were in the way of getting 
from Ontario to Erie and Huron and Michigan, and 
as yet nobody ventured to propose such a canal as the 
Welland. 

Clinton was the most aggressive member of the com- 
mission, which indeed would not have been appointed 
but for his urgings. As soon as the appointment was 
made he and Morris went to Washington to solicit 
the aid of Congress. They did not venture to ask for 
an appropriation of money, either as a gift or a loan; 
but they did urge the granting of public lands in aid 
of the scheme. But their errand was in vain. It was 
not an opportune time, Congress thought, for such an 
enterprise. The embargo and other circumstances had 
depressed commerce and finance. The country was 
likely soon to be at war with Great Britain. And any- 
way the scheme was probably impracticable. Several 
New York Representatives in Congress were loud in 
their scorn of it and violent in their denunciation of 
its projector. 

The result was that Congress rather curtly and most 
emphatically refused to have anything to do with the 
scheme, and Clinton and Morris returned to New York 
empty-handed. Clinton returned, moreover, to find 
himself made the target of such volleys of ridicule and 
abuse as few men have had to endure. Tammany Hall 
particularly raged against him and the canal. It 
declared that he knew the thing was impossible, and 



181J] CANALS AND BANKS 329 

was advocating it only for the sake of notoriety and 
political advantage. He had made the trip to Wash- 
ington at public expense, it insisted, for political pur- 
poses. As for the "ditch from the Lakes to the Sea," 
it was as fantastically impossible as a ladder to the 
moon, and if any part of it was ever dug it would never 
serve any purpose other than that of a grave to bury 
its mad maker in! Thus for a time the canal project 
was necessarily held in abeyance, and seemed defeated. 
There came up at the same time in an aggravated 
form a question which had already caused much 
scandal in the State, to-wit, that of the chartering of 
banks. We have already seen the circumstances in 
which the Manhattan Bank and the Merchants' Bank 
of New York City had come into existence, and the 
unspeakable corruption through which the State Bank 
was established. For several years the stench of this 
latter scandal was so great that nobody ventured to 
propose the chartering of another bank. But in 1812 
such a proposal was made, in extraordinary form. 
With an inkling of what was coming, Governor Tomp- 
kins had devoted the greater part of his unprece- 
dentedly long address to the Legislature to that subject. 
Referring to the fact that petitions were about to be 
presented for the chartering of new banks with aggre- 
gate capital of eighteen and a half millions of dollars, 
he suggested that enough banks had already been 
organized, and that such further increase of them 
might prove disastrous to the State. He dwelt upon 
the evils of financial speculation, and of the inflated 
expectations which promoters of banks too often 



330 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

aroused; upon the bad influence of amassed and con- 
centrated wealth; the increased facilities for counter- 
feiting; the abuse of credit; the evil of exempting so 
large an amount of property from taxation, and the 
danger of unfavorable reflection upon the integrity of 
public men. 

Despite these arguments of the Governor, the bank 
schemes went forward. The Bank of the United 
States had failed to secure from Congress a renewal 
of its charter, and the result was that its stockholders 
had returned to them a large amount of uninvested 
capital. It was their purpose to reinvest this in 
another bank, in New York, which city was by this 
time clearly destined to be the financial metropolis of 
the United States. They therefore asked for a charter 
of an institution to be known as the Bank of America, 
with six million dollars capital; its name and the 
amount of its capital indicating its national scope. 
Their two chief agents in the promotion of the scheme 
were David Thomas and Solomon Southwick. Mr. 
Thomas was a veteran member of the Anti-Federalist 
or Democratic party, who had faithfully and efficiently 
served as member of Assembly, State Treasurer, and 
Representative in Congress. Mr. Southwick, as we 
have already seen, was the editor of the Democratic 
organ at Albany, a man of singular personal charm, 
and the devoted friend of DeWitt Clinton. 

The Assembly on February 2, 1812, appointed Wil- 
liam W. Gilbert, Johannes Bruyn, Henry Yates, and 
Francis A. Bloodgood members of the Council of 
Appointment — all supporters of DeWitt Clinton. 



1812] CANALS AND BANKS 331 

Three days later it elected David Thomas, the agent 
of the bank promoters, to be Treasurer of the State. 
Securing election by the Senate also, Mr. Thomas 
promptly entered upon that office, to the great advan- 
tage of the bank scheme. Then the demand for a 
charter for the Bank of America was made. 

Seldom has a more unblushingly offensive proposal 
been made to a governing body. The State Bank had 
secured its charter by the bribery of individual mem- 
bers of the Legislature. This one sought to secure 
its charter by collective bribery of the State of New 
York. It purposed to devote to that end ten per cent, 
of its entire capital of six million dollars. If the State 
would give it a charter, it would give $400,000 to the 
common school fund and $100,000 to the literature 
fund; and it would pay $100,000 more into the 
treasury of the State at the end of twenty years, if in 
that time no other bank had received a charter. In 
addition, the bank would loan a million dollars to the 
State for canals, and another million to the farmers 
of the State. This astounding scheme was commended 
to the public by an army of touts, and was pressed 
upon the Legislature by such an organized lobby as 
never had been seen before, and which has scarcely 
been surpassed since, even in the wildest heyday of 
the '"Black Horse Cavalry." 

Of course it was vigorously opposed. Governor 
Tompkins threw all his influence against it. Ambrose 
Spencer, though a strong Democrat and the brother- 
in-law of Clinton, was passionately outspoken against 
it, and became on that account Clinton's bitter personal 



332 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

foe. John Tayler, who as a State Senator had, as we 
have hitherto seen, so powerfully contributed to the 
election of Tompkins as Governor, was also aggressive 
in his opposition to the bank. But both Spencer and 
Tayler were in a measure handicapped by the fact that 
the former was a large stockholder in the Manhattan 
Bank and the State Bank, and the latter was president 
of the State Bank; and they were therefore plausibly 
and perhaps truthfully charged with being moved by 
selfish purposes. Erastus Root, a new member of the 
State Senate, made some powerful speeches against the 
scheme, though he had formerly prostituted his splen- 
did talents to the defense of similar iniquities. 

Despite this opposition, however, the bill for 
chartering the bank was steadily advanced, and pres- 
ently its enacting clause was passed in the Assembly 
by a vote of 52 to 46. Then, before the remaining 
clauses were taken up, explicit charges were made of 
attempted bribery. Casper M. Rouse, Senator from 
Chenango county, declared that David Thomas had 
offered him for his vote ten shares of bank stock, with a 
profit of a thousand dollars, and had asked him to 
close the bargain with Solomon Southwick. Alexander 
Sheldon, the Speaker of the Assembly, made a similar 
charge against Southwick. On the charges, Thomas 
and Southwick were both indicted, but the cases against 
them failed, partly because of lack of other testimony 
against them than that of their accusers, which of 
course they both denied, and partly because their 
accusers had subsequently to the date of the alleged 
attempts at bribery continued cordial relations with 



1812] CANALS AND BANKS 333 

them and had actually voted for Thomas for State 
Treasurer and for Southwick for Regent of the State 
University. Various other agents of the bank were 
also indicted for similar offenses, and some of them 
were convicted. One, formerly a clergyman, was sent 
to the penitentiary. 

It may be recalled that when revelations of corrup- 
tion were made in the case of the Merchants' Bank, the 
number of supporters of that enterprise was actually 
increased, as though bribery were a recommendation of 
it. It is a grim reflection upon the legislative ethics of 
that time that such was the case also with the Bank of 
America. After these accusations of bribery, the truth 
of which was widely believed, support for the bill 
increased, and the remaining clauses were passed by 
the Assembly by a vote of 58 to 39. 

The bill then went to the Senate, where there was 
every prospect of its speedy passage. Erastus Root 
thundered against it, and those who looked to Clinton 
for guidance found him silent in circumstances which 
reversed the familiar rule and made silence denote dis- 
sent. Clinton was indeed at heart as much opposed to 
the bill, and to the chartering of any new bank, as was 
his brother-in-law, Ambrose Spencer; and for the same 
reason, namely, his personal interest in existing banks. 
He told Spencer frankly that such was the case, but 
added that he would not say so publicly and would 
not be drawn into the contest on either side. Thus it 
was because of Clinton's silence and not because of 
any advocacy of the bank, that Spencer quarreled with 
him. 



334 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The first trial of strength in the Senate was on a 
motion in committee of the whole to reject the bill. 
This motion was defeated, by a vote of 13 to IS. 
Besides, the chairman, E. P. Livingston, who had not 
voted, was known to be against the motion to reject 
and in favor of the bank. It was practically certain, 
therefore, that the bill chartering the bank would pass 
the Senate, as it had already passed the House. 

Then the Governor intervened. On March 27, as 
already recorded, he prorogued the Legislature until 
May 21. 

We have hitherto referred to the two motives which 
have been ascribed to Mr. Tompkins for that extraor- 
dinary action. That which was expressed in his mes- 
sage of prorogation was to secure time for reflection 
upon the bank controversy, and to investigate the 
scandalous charges of corruption which had been 
made. The other, unexpressed but widely attributed 
to him, probably with much truth, was a desire to inter- 
fere with DeWitt Clinton's campaign for the Presi- 
dency and to defeat him in that ambition. The latter 
was not a worthy motive, but it was successful. The 
former was worthy and commendable in a high degree, 
but it failed. 

After referring to the large capital already invested 
in banking, and its adequacy to commercial purposes, 
and also to the prospect of a war with Great Britain, 
the Governor said: 

"Can it be wise to increase our banking capital in 
an unprecedented manner, at a time when we have only 
a very limited and restricted commerce left? Can it 



1812] CANALS AND BANKS 335 

be prudent or safe at such a time to employ British 
capital and subject ourselves to its deleterious influence 
in thwarting the operations of our own government?" 

But even these considerations became less important 
in view of others. He continued: 

"It appears, by the journals of the Assembly, that 
attempts have been made to corrupt, by bribes, four 
members of that body, to vote for the passage of the 
bill to incorporate the aforesaid bank; and it also 
appears by the journals of the Senate that an improper 
attempt has been made to influence one of the Senators. 
. . . Should its final passage now take place, before 
the persons implicated in holding out the above-men- 
tioned inducements shall have been judicially tried, and 
without consulting the feelings and opinions of the com- 
munity at large upon the subject, public sentiment will, 
I fear, however unjustly, attribute its passage, in some 
degree, to the influence of such inducements." 

That was logical, honorable, manly, patriotic. But 
it was, unhappily, ineffective. The storm that rose 
against it was ferocious. Members of both houses 
raged against it, as though a coup d'etat had been 
attempted, and many of them before leaving Albany 
signed and published a formal protest against it. 
Of course Southwick's paper raged against it. Clin- 
ton remained silent, with the proverbial "mingled 
emotions." As a blow against the bank, he secretly 
rejoiced in it. As a deadly blow at his own Presi- 
dential schemes, he execrated it. 

During the recess of the Legislature the April elec- 
tions occurred, resulting in some Federalist gains but 



336 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

leaving both houses under Democratic control. The 
elections gave little indication of popular feeling toward 
the bank, save that in Otsego county the Democratic 
county convention recommended to the district con- 
vention the nomination of E. H. Metcalf for State 
Senator, and the district convention rejected him for 
the sole reason that, while a most worthy and estimable 
man in all other respects, he had voted in the Assembly 
for the Bank bill. 

During the recess, also, plans were formulated for 
defeating the Bank bill in the Council of Revision, 
which would have the power of vetoing it and over 
whose veto of it the Legislature might not be able to 
pass it. The Council consisted of seven members, 
including the Governor, and it was believed that four 
would approve and three would disapprove the bill. 
That would mean its approval. But if two more mem- 
bers could be added, both of whom were opposed to the 
bank, the bill might be killed. So a petition was 
presented to the Council of Appointment praying for 
the appointment of two additional Justices of the 
Supreme Court and for their "immediate appoint- 
ment" in order that they might "arrest and prevent 
the passage of a bill before the Legislature entitled 'An 
Act to Incorporate the Bank of America.' ' This peti- 
tion was "not intended for general circulation, but was 
to be presented to influential Republicans (Democrats) 
only." Whether it was ever presented to the Council 
of Appointment is uncertain. Probably it was not. 
Certainly it was not acted upon by that body. 




Robert Fulton 

Robert Fulton, inventor; born in Little Britain, Pa., 1765; 
studied painting; made success as miniature painter in Lon- 
don; began experiments in mechanics and engineering; made 
experiments on the Seine with a boat for submarine naviga- 
tion, 1796; made experiments with torpedoes in United States, 
1806; launched first attempt at a steamboat, 1803; the Cler- 
mont, his steamboat, started on a trip on the Hudson August 
11, 1807; Fulton died in New York City, February 24, 1815. 



18121 CANALS AND BANKS 337 

The Legislature reassembled on May 21, and the 
Senate immediately resumed consideration of the bank 
charter. Erastus Root was its chief opponent, and 
Morgan Lewis its principal advocate. At the end of 
a week it was passed by a vote of seventeen to thirteen. 
All the Federalists voted for it, as they had, with a 
single exception — that of Mr. Lorillard, of New York, 
— in the Assembly. 

While these discreditable performances were going 
on, a work of the highest beneficence was also being 
promoted. On February 17, 1812, the Commission on 
Common Schools, which had been appointed in the pre- 
ceding year, submitted a most interesting and valuable 
report, saying truly at its beginning: "Perhaps there 
never will be presented to the Legislature a subject of 
more importance than the establishment of common 
schools." After arguing the importance of popular 
education, the report recommended the establishment 
of common schools, under the direction and patronage 
of the State, in which should be taught reading, writ- 
ing, arithmetic, and the principles of morality. The 
plan proposed that all towns be divided into school 
districts, with a school in each under the care of trustees 
elected by the people of the district; that the income 
from the State school fund be apportioned among the 
districts according to their school population ; that each 
town raise by local taxation a sum equal to that appor- 
tioned to it by the State; that all such monies, State 
and local, be devoted to paying the salaries of teachers, 
the other expenses being otherwise provided for; and 
that the whole system be under the charge of a State 



338 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Superintendent. The report further gave much atten- 
tion to ways and means of increasing the school fund, 
the qualification of teachers, and the courses of study. 

As a consequence of this report the Legislature 
passed chapter 232 of the Laws of New York, which 
was enacted on June 19, 1812, and which, as stated in 
the preceding chapter, was the foundation of the 
present common school system of the State. 

At the same session of the Legislature the Assembly 
committee to which had been referred the Governor's 
recommendation for an abatement of the provisions 
for corporeal and capital punishment, which he 
described as a "vestige of barbarism," made its report. 
It strongly opposed any such lessening of the severity of 
the laws, holding that "capital punishments are both 
expedient and necessary, and therefore justifiable," and 
that they were in this State attached to as few crimes as 
was consistent with individual security and public 
safety. 



CHAPTER XVI 
PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 

CICERO — or was it Caius Marius? — may have 
been right in declaring that "Silent leges inter 
arma" '; but if he had been speaking in the day of 
which we are writing he must have added, "Sed non 
factiones." Amid arms the laws may be silent; but at 
this time factions assuredly were not. It was the 
shame of America in its early years that political parti- 
sanship often dominated its diplomacy, and even 
intruded its pernicious influence into the conduct of 
war against a foreign foe. Such was the case in New 
York during our second war with Great Britain. That 
war was, indeed, in its inception largely an affair of 
party passion. When we recall the rabid utterances of 
Jefferson and Clay, the insane folly of which was soon 
to be disastrously demonstrated on fields of defeat and 
disgrace, we must agree with the mordant reproach of 
Randolph of Roanoke: "Agrarian cupidity, not mari- 
time right, urges the war." Thus begun, the war was 
conducted to the end amid conflicts of domestic faction 
at times approaching sedition and treason. 

Nowhere, unless in some parts of New England, was 
the anti-war spirit stronger than in New York. 
Nowhere, not even in Virginia and Kentucky, was the 
war spirit stronger or more rampant. The Federalists 
were of course the anti-war party, and their attitude 
was far more logical, patriotic, and convincing than that 

339 



340 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

of the opponents of the war elsewhere. With impreg- 
nable truth and justice they charged responsibility for 
the circumstances which caused the war against the 
pacifist policy of Jefferson, and particularly against his 
unwillingness that the United States should have a 
navy. An efficient navy, rather than an embargo, was 
what had been needed. A score of "Old Ironsides" 
under captains like Hull and Perry would have ended 
impressment in short order and would have kept us out 
of war. Such was the contention of the New York 
Federalists, and in it they were everlastingly right; 
though of course even that fact was no justification of 
any acts or words calculated to embarrass or to handicap 
the national government when once it was, unfortu- 
nately, involved in that war. 

The Democrats were, on the other hand, the war 
party, and for the time they were united in support of 
the government. The growing antagonism between 
Clinton and Tompkins was held in abeyance. So in a 
measure was the still stronger enmity between Clinton 
and President Madison. It was doubtless with reluc- 
tance that Clinton gave his support to the President. 
But even in his often blind and willful arrogance he 
realized that for the time he had no alternative. Oppo- 
sition to the administration would have meant political 
suicide. For a strong racial influence had arisen. The 
suppression of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, followed by 
the Irish Union with Great Britain in 1800, had caused 
an important migration of Irishmen to America, the 
great majority of whom settled in New York. They 
were naturally intensely anti-British in sentiment, and 



1812] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 341 

therefore enthusiastic supporters of the war. Clinton 
himself was of Irish ancestry, and had inherited a large 
measure of the hatred of England that had character- 
ized his uncle George. Nothing was more logical, then, 
than that he should seek to become the leader of the 
steadily growing Irish element in New York politics. 

The second meeting of the Thirty-sixth Legislature 
opened at Albany on January 12, 1813, and lasted until 
April 13, when it adjourned without day. The 
numerous communications from the Governor related 
chiefly to military matters. As the Federalists had a 
majority in the Assembly, they were able to elect a new 
Council of Appointment, consisting of Jonas Piatt, 
Peter W. Radcliff, and John Stearns, Federalists, and 
James W. Wilkin, Democrat, the last named being 
chosen because there was no Federalist Senator from the 
Middle district. The relationship between Clinton 
and the Federalists made it certain, however, that none 
of his friends would be turned out of office by the Fed- 
eralist Council. 

That relationship was suspected, and indeed openly 
charged by Clinton's Democratic opponents, with play- 
ing a decisive part in the election of a United States 
Senator to succeed John Smith, whose term expired on 
March 4. As there was a Democratic majority on a 
joint ballot of the two houses, it was naturally expected 
that a Democrat would be chosen, and James W. 
Wilkin, State Senator from Orange county and the 
only Democratic member of the Council of Appoint- 
ment, was regularly nominated as the candidate of that 
party. Rufus King was put forward by the Federalists. 



342 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1812 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

On joint ballot King received 68 votes and Wilkin 61, 
and there were three blank ballots; and Mr. King was 
therefore elected. Even if the blank ballots had been 
cast for Mr. Wilkin, he would have failed to receive 
a majority. It was thus obvious that a number of 
Democrats had voted for the Federalist candidate, but 
just who they were was never disclosed. 

The Tammany men of New York City, who were at 
this time almost solidly arrayed against Clinton, openly 
charged that he had directed his supporters in the Leg- 
islature to vote for King in fulfillment of a bargain 
which they said he had made with the Federalists in 
1812, under which the Federalists voted for Clintonian 
Presidential Electors. The followers of Clinton vigor- 
ously denied this, and declared that the "selling out 1 ' 
of Mr. Wilkin was the result of a bargain made by 
Messrs. Thomas and Southwick in their campaign for 
the Bank of America, when they promised Democratic 
votes for a Federalist Senator in return for Federalist 
support for the bank scheme. Positive proof or dis- 
proof of either story was never adduced; but it was 
significant that Mr. Wilkin himself declared his utter 
disbelief in the former and his equally positive con- 
viction of the truth of the latter version. 

The 1812 Council of Appointment as its last act in 
January, 1813, appointed Gideon Hawley, a young 
lawyer of Albany, to be the first State Superintendent 
of Schools. His salary in that office was only three 
hundred dollars a year. But being a man of high 
ideals and devotion to the public service, he did his 
work as well as though his remuneration had been ten 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 343 

times as great, and thus became the organizer of the 
common school system of the State, performing one 
of the finest pieces of constructive and administrative 
work for the public interest in New York's history. 

The new Council of Appointment met for the first 
time on February 8, and at once vindicated the con- 
fidence which Clinton felt in its friendliness. Its first 
act was the reappointment of him as Mayor of New 
York. The motion for that act was made by Senator 
Piatt, the same distinguished lawyer and Federalist 
leader who had been the Federalist candidate for Gov- 
ernor in 1807, and had then been defeated by DeWitt 
Clinton's candidate, Daniel D. Tompkins. At that 
time Piatt and Clinton had been the strongest of politi- 
cal opponents. Yet in 1812 Piatt used all his influence 
in behalf of Clinton for the Presidency, and in 1813 
successfully moved for his reappointment to the highly 
lucrative and influential office of Mayor of New York. 
The only vote against this reappointment was that of 
Peter W. RadclifF, who was presumably actuated by 
personal motives in opposing Clinton. His brother, 
Jacob RadclifT, had been made Mayor in 1810 in place 
of Clinton, and a year later had been turned out of 
office to let Clinton in again. Because of his course 
in this and some other matters, Mr. RadclifT largely 
lost the confidence of his party associates and his 
influence as a party leader. 

The next important contest in the Council was 
over the Attorney-Generalship. In August, 1812. the 
incumbent, M. B. Hildreth, had died, and Thomas 
Addis Emmet, the eminent Irish patriot, who had 



344 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

come to America some years before, was appointed to 
the place. In February, 1813, Mr. Piatt moved that 
he be not reappointed. This was a direct reversal of 
policy, since Mr. Emmet was one of Clinton's closest 
friends, whom the latter counted upon to hold the Irish 
voters of New York City solid in their support of him. 
Mr. Piatt's action looked, therefore, much like a 
breaking of whatever understanding there had been 
between him and Clinton. Mr. Radcliff again opposed 
Mr. Piatt's motion, though he would not vote upon it 
at all, thus reversing his own attitude, since he had 
refused to vote for Clinton but now refused to vote 
against Clinton's friend. Mr. Stearns voted with Mr. 
Piatt, while the Governor and Mr. Wilkin voted 
against the motion. Apparently the vote was a tie, but 
it was held that the Governor's vote did not count 
since he was entitled to vote only in case of a tie of 
the Council, and in this case there was no tie, for two 
had voted Aye and only one Nay, the fourth member 
not voting. Mr. Emmet was therefore removed from 
office, and Abraham Van Vechten was elected in his 
place. 

From this the Council, under the lead of Mr. Piatt, 
went on to make another pretty clean sweep of offices, 
particularly of those which had good salaries attached 
to them, though it generally filled them with excellent 
men. Thus Pierre C. Van Wyck was removed from 
the Recordship of New York and J. Ogden Hoffman 
was appointed in his place. This was not, however, a 
blow to Clinton, since Mr. Hoffman, though a Fed- 
eralist, had favored Clinton's reappointment as Mayor. 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 345 

The Legislature, also, made a change in the only office 
at its disposal, that of State Treasurer, and although 
it had a Democratic majority on joint ballot it elected 
Charles Z. Piatt, a Federalist, in place of David 
Thomas. There is no doubt that this was done 
because of Mr. Thomas's activity in the matter of the 
Bank of America and the charges of bribery that had 
been preferred against him. 

The early part of this year witnessed the practical 
elimination of the Livingston family from leader- 
ship in New York politics, through the removal of its 
chief members. Robert R. Livingston died on Janu- 
ary 28, after rendering services to steam navigation and 
to agriculture comparable in beneficence to those 
which he had performed in the exalted public 
offices that he had filled. Edward Livingston had 
removed to Louisiana, and Brockholst Livingston had 
gone upon the Supreme Court bench at Washington. 
The remaining members of the family, and members 
by marriages, were unable to maintain the authority 
that had formerly been exercised, and thus another 
long step was taken toward the freeing of the State 
from family or clan control. , 

The bank controversy of the preceding year was 
revived by the request of the Bank of America for a 
modification of the charter which it had obtained and 
for a very radical modification of the terms on which 
that charter was granted. It had asked to be author- 
ized to have a capital of six millions. It now asked 
for a large reduction of that amount, which the Legis- 
lature granted. It also asked to be relieved from pay- 



346 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ing the $600,000 bonus — or bribe, as many called it — 
which it had offered in consideration of the granting 
of the charter; its plea being that if it were bound to 
pay such a sum nobody would subscribe for its stock. 
This was a discreditable bit of what sportsmen call 
"welching," and it was roundly denounced by all the 
opponents of the bank. Nevertheless the Legislature 
granted the request to the extent of releasing the bank 
from the obligation excepting to the extent of a hun- 
dred thousand dollars, which it was required to pay 
to the common school fund. It was freely charged 
that this action by the Legislature was secured by the 
bank through corrupt methods, but no indictments or 
prosecution of any kind ensued. 

The paramount issue of the year in politics was, how- 
ever, the succession to the Governorship. Mr. Tomp- 
kins's second term was drawing to a close, and it was no 
secret that he desired a third, to be a stepping-stone 
to the Presidency of the United States. There was in 
the Democratic party no serious thought of any other 
candidate. No doubt Clinton regarded with resent- 
ment the continued political prosperity of the man 
whom he looked upon as his own creation, and whom 
he doubtless regarded as an ingrate if not a traitor. 
But Tompkins's well deserved popularity was so great 
and so substantial that even in his utmost arrogance 
Clinton did not venture to oppose him. The usual 
caucus of the Democratic members of the Legislature 
was held, as a nominating convention, on February 4; 
but, as usual, only a small number attended. There 
were only forty-eight, nearly all from outside of New 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 347 

York City. Presumably the reason for this abstention 
of members was, in great part, the hostility of Tam- 
many Hall to that method of nomination. That organ- 
ization had strongly committed itself to the practice 
which afterward prevailed, of calling a State conven- 
tion specially constituted for the purpose of making 
nominations for State offices. 

The caucus was harmonious and unanimous in 
renominating Tompkins for the Governorship. Over 
the Lieutenant-Governorship there was decided differ- 
ence in opinion. Clinton was holding that office, and 
his friends urged that he should be renominated, as 
Tompkins had been. Against this Ambrose Spencer 
vigorously protested. Martin Van Buren, one of the 
most influential men in the caucus and the one chosen 
to draft the party platform, was looked to by Clinton 
to be his spokesman and champion. But that astute 
politician had a fine gift for anticipating "which way 
the cat would jump," and obviously realized that 
Clinton was doomed to rejection. He did not openly 
oppose him, as Spencer did, but he did not support him, 
and probably exerted some quiet and private influ- 
ence against him. There is reason for suspecting that 
the Governor also, though of course not a member 
of the caucus, used some personal influence against 
Clinton. The outcome of the voting in the caucus was 
that John Tayler received thirty-two votes and was 
accordingly nominated, while Clinton received pre- 
cisely half that number. 

There was no ground for challenging the vote, and 
the elimination of Clinton from official life seemed to 



348 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

be assured. But such a result was not to be acquiesced 
in meekly by that indomitable fighter and his devoted 
friends. He did not, it is true, openly bolt the party. 
That would have been fatal. But forty-one of his 
friends, led by Obadiah German and Philip Van Cort- 
landt, held a meeting and issued an address to the party 
and the voters of the State, which in style and spirit 
was so unmistakably like Clinton that it was a most 
reasonable assumption that he was himself the author 
of it. This remarkable document began with the 
Presidential campaign of the preceding year and 
reviewed it and the course of the national administra- 
tion in a manner most unfavorable to Madison. It 
reviewed in like fashion the administration of Governor 
Tompkins. Finally, it protested against the election 
of the Democratic ticket, declaring that Tompkins and 
Tayler were both mere tools of the Federal admin- 
istration at Washington; a charge which received color 
from the fact that in the platform upon which those 
gentlemen had been nominated Van Buren had made 
a most elaborate and impassioned defense and eulogy 
of Madison's administration. 

This was a direct appeal to Democrats to bolt their 
party ticket and to vote for the Federalist candidates. 
The latter were not, however, well chosen. Stephen 
Van Rensselaer was the candidate for Governor, and 
George Huntington, of Oneida county, for Lieutenant- 
Governor. They had been nominated on February 11 
at a convention consisting not only of the Federalist 
members of the Legislature but also of numerous other 
citizens, with Judge Egbert Benson as chairman and 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 349 

Daniel Parrish as secretary— a combination of legisla- 
tive caucus and popular convention. They were men 
of good character and ability. But Van Rensselaer had 
made an egregiously poor record in the war. He had 
been in command at Fort Niagara as a major-general 
of militia, and had there suffered a disastrous and 
indeed disgraceful defeat, which led James Monroe 
to declare him "weak and incompetent, 1 ' and Jeffer- 
son to say that he ought to be "broke for incapacity." 
It was, of course, no uncommon thing for army officers, 
both militia and regular, to display incompetence and 
cowardice in that war. But such conduct did not com- 
mend a man to the voters of the State. 

Still, the Federalists confidently expected success, 
and the Democrats were fearful of defeat. The 
schism of Clinton's forty-one supporters was alarm- 
ing. Against Van Rensselaer's poor record at Fort 
Niagara a score of blunders by the administration at 
Washington could be named. Down to the very day 
of election the shrewdest political observers in both 
parties looked for the defeat of Tompkins, though it 
does not appear that the Governor himself feared it. 
He had confidence in himself, and his confidence was 
justified. New York City, Albany, Hudson, and other 
centers of population gave Federalist majorities But 
the great rural vote of the State was true to the "farmer 
boy." The result of the polling was 43,324 for Tomp- 
kins and 39,718 for Van Rennsselaer. In the Legisla- 
ture the result was mixed. The Democrats carried the 
Middle, Southern, and Western districts by substantial 
majorities, and the Federalists only the Eastern. But 



350 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

in the Assembly the Federalists won, securing a 
majority of ten, because of the election of Federalist 
members by the votes of Clinton's friends in New York 
City. 

In this campaign Solomon Southwick, with his 
Albany Register, had been not only outspoken but vio- 
lent in opposition to Governor Tompkins and indeed 
to the Madison administration and to the Democratic 
party generally. This temporarily deprived the 
Democrats of a party organ at the State capital, and 
steps were taken to supply the want. A company was 
formed to establish a new paper in that city, to be 
known as the Albany Argus, and Jesse Buel, thitherto 
editor and publisher of the Plebeian, in Ulster county, 
became its editor. It quickly attained much influence, 
and had a notable record thereafter as an organ of 
New York Democracy. 

As if to complete the discomfiture of Clinton, dur- 
ing the summer of 1813 several changes were made in 
important offices in New York City under the Fed- 
eral government, including those of the United States 
Marshal and Surveyor of the Port, for no other reason 
than that the incumbents were friends of Clinton. 
The places were then filled with supporters of Tomp- 
kins. These changes were made at the urging of 
Ambrose Spencer, who constituted himself the leader 
of the anti-Clinton forces. 

Governor Tompkins was thus supreme in the Demo- 
cratic party in New York, and seemed fairly on the way 
to the Presidency of the United States, which was the 
goal he sought. Yet at this very time there seemed 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 351 

to rise a serious obstacle in his path, in the person of 
a man whom he himself had put forward — as he him- 
self had been put forward by DeWitt Clinton. This 
was John Armstrong, of whom people began to talk 
as likely to be the next President of the United States, 
a forecast which in the light of subsequent events now 
seems grotesque. 

Armstrong was a pretentious weakling. He had 
been a protege and pupil of Horatio Gates in the Revo- 
lution, a circumstance in itself sufficient to damn him. 
It was he whom Gates sent post-haste after Benedict 
Arnold to try to call him back from winning the battle 
of Saratoga. Later he had written the wretched "New- 
burgh Letters." 

He wrote the "petition" against the Sedition laws 
which led to the prosecution of Jedediah Peck. 
He was elected to the United States Senate, hostile to 
Washington, and resigned. He was sent as Minister 
to France and Commissioner to Spain, and did not dis- 
tinguish himself. Indeed, he was recalled from France 
at the request of the French government. Then he 
got himself commissioned a brigadier-general, and 
then, on almost the very day when Tompkins was 
renominated for Governor, Armstrong, largely through 
the favorable influence of Tompkins and Ambrose 
Spencer, was appointed Secretary of War. The Senate 
hesitated to confirm him because of its doubt of his 
fitness, but finally did so. 

Tompkins, strangely enough, was fearful of Arm- 
strong's rivalry. But long before the next Presi- 
dential campaign Armstrong was thoroughly elimi- 



352 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

nated from the list of possibilities. It is true that he 
did some good work as Secretary of War. His general 
plan of campaign against Canada was not devoid of 
merit, though it was spoiled by Dearborn and Van 
Rensselaer. The best of all his services was his recog- 
nition of the ability of Jacob Brown and Winfleld 
Scott and his promotion of them to places of usefulness. 
But on the other hand he persisted in sticking to, 
coddling, and promoting the unspeakable Wilkinson 
and assigned him to command in New York. Inevi- 
tably, the sequel was one of the most disastrous scandals 
in the whole war, which made the military campaign 
of 1813 the worst in the history of the United States 
army. The next year came the comparable disgrace 
of the abandonment of Washington to a handful of 
invaders, and that caused Armstrong's disappearance 
from public life. 

That all through 1813 Tompkins should have been 
haunted with the fear that Armstrong would outstrip 
him in the Presidential race is a strange reflection upon 
his political sagacity and his judgment of men. Yet 
so strong was this fear that he actually became 
alienated from Ambrose Spencer because of the latter's 
intimacy with Armstrong, and thus lost the support of 
one of the most influential leaders of the State. 

Meanwhile, DeWitt Clinton was engaged in a 
devious intrigue for the retention of the one office that 
was left to him, the Mayoralty of New York City. 
We have seen that while in April, 1813, the Demo- 
crats carried the State for Governor, the Federalists 
won the Assembly. That, under the practical alliance 




Eliphalet Nott 

Eliphalet Nott, educator; born in Ashford, Conn., June 25, 
1773; clergyman; sent out from New London as missionary 
to Western New York; pastor and teacher at Cherry Valley; 
pastor of First Presbyterian church at Albany, 1798-1804; 
elected president of Union College, 1804; died at Schenectady, 
N. Y., January 29, 1866. 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 353 

between him and the Federalists, should have assured 
the election of a Council of Appointment favorable to 
Clinton. But there were no Federalist Senators from 
the Middle and Western districts to appoint to the 
Council, and that body had, therefore, to stand two 
Federalists and two Democrats, with Governor Tomp- 
kins casting the deciding vote. The Federalists were 
Elbert H. Jones and Samuel Stewart, and the Demo- 
crats were Morgan Lewis and Henry A. Townsend. 
That, especially considering Lewis's enmity, seemed to 
mean disaster to Clinton. But Clinton was saved, at 
least from being turned out of the Mayoralty, by the 
support of Townsend, though in circumstances onlv a 
little less galling to him than loss of the Mayoralty 
would have been. 

The preceding Council of Appointment had 
appointed James Kent, then Chief-Justice of the 
Supreme Court, to be Chancellor in place of Mr. 
Lansing, who had been retired for age, and it had pro- 
moted Smith Thompson from an Associate-Justiceship 
to be Chief-Justice in Kent's place. It appointed 
nobody, however, to succeed Thompson on the bench, 
and that vacancy was therefore to be filled by the new 
Council in 1814. It was the desire of the Federalists 
to appoint Jonas Piatt, an eminently fitting choice, but 
of course there was little chance of their doing so unless 
through some bargain which would secure them the 
vote of Senator Townsend. This was effected through 
Clinton's desire to retain the Mayoralty of New York. 
It was made clear — indeed, it was already obvious — to 
him that Morgan Lewis, would vote for his removal, 



354 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1813 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

and that Lewis's vote added to the votes of the two Fed- 
eralists would effect that end. Whether the sugges- 
tion came from Clinton or from the Federalists is not 
certain, though Clinton was generally regarded as the 
author of it; but it was to this effect, that the Fed- 
eralists should vote with Townsend for the retention 
of Clinton in office, and that Townsend should vote 
with the Federalists for the appointment of Piatt. 
This "deal" was quite practicable, since Townsend, 
although elected in 1810 as a Democrat and still 
nominally a member of that party, had stood with 
Clinton in the party fights, had voted for the Bank of 
America, and had openly quarreled with Governor 
Tompkins, Ambrose Spencer, and other party leaders. 
The bargain was agreed upon and would have been 
carried through without any scandal or more than pass- 
ing notice, had it not been for a counter-manceuver by 
Clinton's implacable foe, Morgan Lewis. In some way 
he learned in advance of the bargain between Clinton 
and the Federalists, and reported it to Tompkins. It 
was recognized by them both that it would probably 
be impossible to prevent its consummation, but they 
agreed that it should be made as costly as possible to 
Clinton. Accordingly, when the Council met for the 
appointment of a Justice, Lewis promptly placed in 
nomination the name of Richard Riker. Now, Riker 
was Clinton's "own familiar friend." He had been 
his second in his duel with Swartwout. He had been 
the head of the committee which promoted Clinton's 
campaign for the Presidency. He had for years been 
Clinton's most loyal and most efficient lieutenant. 



1813] PARTISANSHIP IN WAR TIME 355 

This, then, was the dilemma: Tf Townsend voted 
for Piatt, Clinton would retain the Mayoralty, but 
Clinton's friend Riker would be defeated. If Town- 
send voted for Riker, Clinton's friend would win the 
Judgeship, but Clinton himself would lose the Mayor- 
alty. And Townsend looked to Clinton for directions 
what to do. Clinton was thus compelled to choo^ 
between himself and his friend. To his credit — or 
perhaps to his discredit — he hesitated for some time. 
At last he decided, in favor of himself against his 
friend. He kept the Mayoralty, but he lost the most 
loyal friend he had in the world and gained another 
implacable enemy. 

The only other appointment of consequence by this 
Council was that of Jacob R. Van Rensselaer to be 
Secretary of State, in place of Elisha Jenkins. Prac- 
tically all of the other offices in the State were left 
undisturbed. 



CHAPTER XVII 
TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 

GOVERNOR TOMPKINS entered upon his 
third term as a great national figure. His 
reelection was regarded as a great triumph for a 
national administration which was sorely in need of all 
the aid it could get. Federalism, rejuvenated in 
opposition to the war, was rampant throughout the 
country. New England was wholly under its sway, 
in the extremest form; literally raging against the 
Washington government, and going so far as to talk 
of secession. New Jersey was strongly inclined in the 
same direction, but waited to see what New York would 
do. Had New York repudiated the administration, 
every State east of the Delaware River would have 
been arrayed against it and against the further prosecu- 
tion of the war, and the price of retaining them in the 
Union might have been the complete discrediting of 
the administration and the summary ending of the war 
in a humiliating compromise. 

But Tompkins won the New York election, and he 
was the staunch supporter of Madison's administration, 
not alone against the Federalists but equally against the 
anti-administration faction of the Democratic party. 
His reelection was not only hailed with raptures of 
delight at Washington, but also it had a profound and 
decisive effect in other States. It caused New Eng- 
land to act with more moderation, and New Jersey 

356 



1814J TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 357 

to withhold her adherence to extreme Federalism. 
Beyond doubt it saved the administration and the 
country from a serious political crisis. 

The new Legislature, the Thirty-seventh, met at 
Albany on January 25, 1814, and the Federalists, hav- 
ing a majority of ten in the Assembly, elected James 
Emott, of Dutchess county, Speaker. The Governor's 
address was devoted chiefly to the war and to the direct 
tax which Congress had levied upon the States. One 
of the earliest acts of the Legislature was to pass, after 
an unseemly controversy, an appropriation measure for 
the relief of sufferers from the ravages of the war on 
the frontier. This was proposed by the Federalists in 
the Assembly, and was passed by a strict party vote, 
all Democrats voting against it. It is to be assumed 
that the Democrats voted against it for the reason that 
the Commissioners who were to administer the relief, 
and who were named in the bill, were all Federalists. 
The Senate, having a Democratic majority, passed the 
bill after amending it by substituting the names of 
Democrats as Commissioners. In this amendment the 
Assembly refused to concur, and for some time there 
was danger that the bill would fail altogether for that 
purely partisan reason. It was not until February 18 
that it was finally enacted. 

In other directions partisan and factional passions 
were manifested, sometimes to an indecorous degree. 
The Senate's reply to the Governor's address was writ- 
ten by Martin Van Buren, and exhibited all his 
adroitness of speech. It was of course entirely sympa- 
thetic with the Governor's view, and contained a deft 



358 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

and subtle reproach upon all who ventured to oppose 
or to criticise the war. The reply of the Assembly was 
almost bitter in its hostility to the war and to the Gov- 
ernor. The Senate promptly passed a bill, in accord- 
ance with the Governor's recommendation, for the 
assumption by the State of its proportion of the direct 
tax levied by Congress, but the Assembly rejected it 
by a strict party vote — the Assembly committee which 
reported on it declaring that instead of wasting its 
resources by making further grants to the national gov- 
ernment, the State should demand to be reimbursed 
for the expenses which it had already incurred on 
account of the war. 

The Assembly adopted, on motion of a Federalist 
member, a set of resolutions expressing admiration of 
the achievement of Commodore Perry and his com- 
rades in the battle of Lake Erie, but expressing dis- 
approval of the "disastrous, destructive, and ruinous 
war," and insisting that our commercial rights should 
have been defended by a competent navy and not by 
an embargo. The Democrats strove in vain to secure 
the elimination of the hostile reflections upon the war 
and upon the policy of the national administration. 
Numerous other partisan controversies arose during the 
session, within each house and between the two houses, 
the chief Democratic protagonists in the Senate being 
Erastus Root and Martin Van Buren, the latter of 
whom swiftly rose to State leadership in the party, 
while the Federalists of the Assembly were represented 
by David B. Ogden, Samuel Jones, Jr., Charles Bing, 
and Jacob R. Van Rensselaer. 



1814] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 359 

In other respects it was an active session. The Rev. 
Dr. Eliphalet Nott secured from the Legislature, for 
Union College, by virtue of some singularly adroit 
"log-rolling," a grant of $200,000, to be raised by a 
lottery. Support for this extraordinary measure was 
secured by the expedient of coupling with it other but 
smaller grants to a number of institutions in various 
parts of the State — among them Columbia and Hamil- 
ton colleges, the Historical Society of New York, and 
the African church. The School law was radically 
revised according to a draft prepared by Mr. Hawley, 
the very competent Superintendent of Education. No 
fewer than sixteen applications for bank charters were 
received, chiefly, if not all, of the "wild cat" variety, 
and all were rejected. The Legislature adjourned 
without day on April IS. 

In that month the annual election for a new Legisla- 
ture was held, in circumstances of despondency for the 
Governor and his party. Despite the splendid achieve- 
ments of Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, the war had 
not been going well for the American arms, and there 
was a general feeling that the Federalists would win at 
the polls. But to the astonishment of both parties and 
to the delight of the Governor and of the administra- 
tion at Washington, the Democrats swept the State. 
They elected every Senator save one, an overwhelm- 
ing majority of the Assembly, and two-thirds of the 
Representatives in Congress. They would have elected 
all the Senators had not Solomon Southwick most 
injudiciously been put forward as one of their candi- 
dates in the Eastern district. That once phenomenally 



360 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

popular and prosperous editor, printer, and politician, 
State Printer and agent for the Bank of America, had 
become practically bankrupt both pecuniarily and 
politically, and he was put forward by his friends in a 
vain hope of securing his rehabilitation. He was badly 
defeated by George Tibbits, a Federalist. 

It seems not improbable that the victory in New 
York for the Democratic party and thus for the Madi- 
son administration was largely because of and not 
merely in spite of the reverses which the American 
arms had suffered in the war. For there soon followed 
what was in some respects the most humiliating reverse 
of all, namely, the disgraceful abandonment of Wash- 
ington to a handful of British invaders, and in conse- 
quence a still further rallying of the people of New 
York to the support of the government. Even the 
most extreme Federalists, who a few months before 
had been adopting resolutions against the prosecution 
of the war, were now at least silent, while the masses 
of that party did not hesitate to join with Democrats 
in public meetings throughout the State, declaring that 
the government must be supported to the fullest pos- 
sible extent, and that there must be no more partisan 
bickerings over the rights or wrongs of the war until 
foreign invaders were driven from the soil of the 
United States. At heart the Federalists were of 
course entirely militant for their country. 

In New York City there was some fear that that 
place would suffer the fate of Washington, or at least 
that of Baltimore, and impromptu military organiza- 



1814] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 361 

tions were formed, with daily drilling, in preparation 
to repel an attack. DeWitt Clinton, as Mayor, took 
the lead in these operations, and thus regained much 
of the popularity and prestige which he had lost, 
though of course that was not his purpose in his 
patriotic endeavors. 

But the supreme leader in patriotic devotion was 
Governor Tompkins, and at this crisis he rose magnifi- 
cently to the needs of the occasion. There was press- 
ing need for money, to the amount of at least half a 
million dollars, for the fortification and defense of New 
York and other equally urgent purposes. The banks 
were asked to loan it, on the security of the treasury 
notes of the United States government; but they 
refused. That was not so much a reflection upon the 
patriotism of the banks as upon the solvency of the 
national government. The banks could not properly 
risk the money which they held in trust for their 
depositors on a security which they deemed inadequate, 
and thus they regarded, at that unhappy time, the notes 
of the United States treasury! 

They would, however, advance the money upon the 
security of such notes, if Governor Tompkins would 
endorse the notes! Now, Tompkins was not a rich 
man, and would not be able to make good out of his 
own means any such sum as half a million dollars. 
Moreover, he had no authority to endorse the notes in 
the name of the State, but would do so entirely on his 
own personal responsibility. It was not his fortune, 
it was not his official position, for which the banks had 



362 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

regard, but simply for his personal character. It 
would have been impossible to pay him a higher trib- 
ute than that which was thus implied. 

It is interesting to recall that this proposition was 
made to the Governor by Rufus King, the leader of 
the Federalists and the implacable opponent of the 
Madison administration. But King placed patriotism 
above party or personality. He went straight to the 
Governor and told him what the banks wanted; add- 
ing that it was a time when it was every man's duty to 
place himself and all that he had at the service of the 
government, which he was willing to do. 

"If I do this," observed Tompkins, "it will be on my 
own responsibility, and if the government defaulted 
or the State did not back me up, I should be ruined." 

"Quite true," replied King, "and it is better for a 
man to be ruined than for the country to be lost. But 
I pledge you my honor that if you will do this thing 
I will support you to the full extent of my resources." 

Without hesitation Tompkins endorsed the notes, 
and the money was provided by the banks. It should 
be added that at various other times during the war 
Governor Tompkins borrowed money for the govern- 
ment without authority and on his personal credit, and 
on some occasions failed to secure proper vouchers. 
The result was that the military accounts of the State 
became badly mixed, and the Comptroller reported that 
there was a deficit of $120,000 to be charged against 
the Governor. Tompkins replied that on the contrary 
the State was owing him a large sum. An official 



1814] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 363 

investigation was ordered, and it was found that the 
State was indeed indebted to him in the sum of 
$90,000. 

The British capture of Washington had the effect of 
finally eliminating John Armstrong from public life. 
Immediately upon that disaster he resigned his place 
as Secretary of War, and retired to his home at Red 
Hook, to spend the remainder of his life as a recluse. 
Dr. Hammond in his History of New York strongly 
intimates that Armstrong was unjustly sacrificed, first 
by President Madison, who wanted to make him the 
scapegoat of the administration, and second and third 
by Monroe, who was Secretary of State, and by Gov- 
ernor Tompkins, both of whom had Presidential aspira- 
tions and regarded Armstrong as a formidable rival 
whom they wished to get rid of. It scarcely seems 
credible that this was true, at least so far as Madison 
and Tompkins were concerned; nor has maturer judg- 
ment confirmed Dr. Hammond's high estimate of 
Armstrong's "mighty intellect." 

Governor Tompkins very judiciously called the 
Thirty-eighth Legislature together in special session 
on September 26, 1814, when Samuel Young was 
chosen Speaker of the Assembly. The Governor in his 
address dwelt chiefly upon the war and its exigencies, 
and the special perils and duties of New York. He 
urged the desirability of relieving the poorer classes 
of the population from bearing the unreasonable pro- 
portion of the burden of militia duty to which they 
were subjected by the existing laws, and the necessity 
of making property the criterion of contribution to the 



364 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

public defense. Upon this recommendation the Leg- 
islature acted favorably and promptly, with a law 
authorizing the raising of troops for the defense of the 
State on a classified system. Twelve thousand men 
were to be enlisted, practically by conscription. Nomi- 
nally they were to be volunteers; but if each class did 
not provide its quota of men, assessments were to be 
made upon all the members of the defaulting class 
in proportion to their property holdings. It was a 
drastic measure, but it was approved by public senti- 
ment. Another law provided for the enlistment of 
two thousand negro slaves for three years. Such 
enlistments were to be with the consent of the masters 
of the slaves, and the negroes were to be emancipated 
from slavery on being honorably, discharged at the end 
of their term of service. 

Another law increased the pay of the militia, while in 
the national service, above the compensation granted by 
the national government, and another provided for the 
enlistment of a corps of "sea fencibles," consisting of 
twenty companies, for the special defense of the port 
of New York. These "sea fencibles" were to be 
enlisted for three years, and were to be constantly 
ready at instant call for service. It was intended that 
they should take the place of the militia for port 
defense, leaving the latter free for inland service. Gov- 
ernor Tompkins was reimbursed for personal expendi- 
tures which he had made in emergencies without 
authorization; provision was made for fuller fortifica- 
tion of Staten Island; men actually engaged in the 



1814] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 365 

public military service were exempted from arrest on 
civil process; and traffic and intercourse with the enemy 
were prohibited. 

Still another law was enacted, of dubious virtue even 
at that time. It was intended to promote privateering 
against the enemy's commerce, by authorizing the 
organization of associations for that purpose. This 
alone of all these war measures met with serious 
opposition in the Legislature, the Federalist members 
voting solidly against it. More significant still, the 
Federalist members of the Council of Revision, under 
the lead of Chancellor Kent, opposed it and sought to 
veto it. The Chancellor argued against it with impres- 
sive force, as a measure contrary to the genius of the 
American Constitution and repugnant to the civilized 
and enlightened spirit of the age. Reply was made 
to the Chancellor in the public press by Martin Van 
Buren, who had become the chief spokesman of the 
national administration in New York and therefore 
the champion of all State measures intended for its 
aid and comfort, and the law was approved by the 
Democratic majority of the Council of Revision, 
though the moral honors of the discussion undoubtedly 
rested with Kent. 

During this session of the New York Legislature the 
scheme of the famous Hartford Convention was 
broached by Harrison Gray Otis and other Massa- 
chusetts Federalists, and was of course brought to the 
attention of the leaders of that party in New York. It 
was variously regarded by them. Some of the fore- 
most, such as Daniel Cady and Abraham Van Vechten, 



366 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

would have nothing to do with it, but opposed it in 
the strongest manner as unpatriotic if not actually 
treasonable; and their influence was so commanding 
that the party as a whole never committed itself to the 
scheme or gave it any encouragement. On the other 
hand, there were some who did favor it, and a consider- 
able number were inclined to give it serious considera- 
tion. Among these were many of the Federalist mem- 
bers of the Legislature, a dozen of whom went so far 
as to issue a call for a New York State convention, 
the purpose of which was ostensibly to consider the 
course which should be pursued in matters of State 
legislation, but which must almost certainly have had 
in contemplation cooperation with the extremists of 
New England. Abraham Van Vechten was, strangely 
enough, among those who issued the call. His motive 
was, however, to assure himself a place in the Conven- 
tion if it should be held, in which he could oppose, 
with all his unsurpassed dialectic skill, any extreme 
action. 

The call for this Convention was published in the 
New York Evening Post, one of the foremost Fed- 
eralist papers, at the end of September, 1814, and on 
October 5 the Convention was held. It was not a public 
gathering, however, and reports of its proceedings were 
not printed. Happily, it was attended by Abraham 
Van Vechten, Daniel Cady, Gouverneur Morris, and 
other men of influence and ability who, whatever their 
political sentiments, were not disposed to play at sedi- 
tion. They served as a most effective check upon the 
more radical spirits, to so good effect that no action 



1814] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 367 

concerning the Hartford Convention was taken, and 
indeed no mention of that ill-starred body was made. 
Instead, the New York gathering contented itself with 
discussing the attitude which ought to be assumed 
toward the proposed Conscription act, already men- 
tioned, which Van Buren had caused to be prepared 
at Albany for adoption by the Legislature^ and which 
was then pending. The volunteer system in the army 
had proved a disgraceful failure, and in sheer despera- 
tion the State and Federal governments looked to a 
draft as necessary to save the country from British 
conquest. The New York State act was passed, and 
there is little doubt that still more drastic conscription 
would have been resorted to by the Federal govern- 
ment itself had not the news of the peace-making at 
Ghent come with unexpected suddenness. But in 
October there was no expectation of peace, and there 
was expectation of a draft, and to that subject the New 
York Convention addressed itself. 

That Governor Tompkins intervened in or attempted 
in any way to influence this Federalist gathering is not 
to be supposed. Yet there is no doubt that his pres- 
ence in the State and his general influence in behalf 
of the national administration were of immense service 
at this critical time. In fact, it may be doubted if any 
other one man in the nation was so great a power for 
good. Upon the retirement of Armstrong from the 
War office the duties of that department were tem- 
porarily assumed by James Monroe, the Secretary of 
State. President Madison thereupon invited and even 
urged Tompkins to enter his cabinet as Secretary of 



368 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1814 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

State, the plan being for Monroe to resign that office 
in favor of that of Secretary of War. Madison earn- 
estly desired this, and Monroe was understood to be 
quite willing. At this time, too, the State department 
was regarded as the pretty sure stepping-stone to the 
Presidency, and it was intimated to Tompkins that he 
could count upon the influence of the administration to 
make him Madison's successor in the White House. 
The temptation was strong, and it was directly in line 
with Tompkins's own ambition. But patriotism was 
superior to personal preferment, and the Governor's 
vision was keener and his judgment was sounder than 
the President's. Tompkins declined the flattering 
invitation, on the ground that he could serve the 
nation and incidentally the administration more effi- 
ciently as Governor of New York than as Secretary 
of State. In that he was quite right. The crisis of 
the war was at hand, and New York held the key to the 
national position. If it stood firm in support of the 
government, New England disaffection would be 
restrained by an impassable barrier. If New York 
joined the Hartford extremists against prosecution of 
the war, chaos yawned in the foreground of the scene. 
So Tompkins remained at Albany, and New York 
remained true to the Union; and a little later came 
news of the treaty of Ghent. 

There were in our second war with Great Britain 
many heroes in the American navy. There were a few 
heroes in the American army. The one resplendent 
hero of our civil life was the Governor of New York, 
Daniel D. Tompkins. 




Ambrose Spencer 



Ambrose Spencer, jurist; born in Salisbury, Conn., Decem- 
ber 13, 1765; city clerk of Hudson, N. Y., 1786-93; member of 
assembly, 1794; state senate, 1796-1802; assistant state at- 
torney general, 1796; attorney general, 1802-4; justice supreme 
court, 1804-19; regent, 1805; chief justice, 1819-23; member 
of congress, 1829-31; mayor of Albany, 1824-26; died in Lyons, 
N. Y., March 13, 1848. ' 



1815] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 369 

The special session of the Thirty-eighth Legislature 
adjourned on October 24, 1814, and the regular session 
began on January 31, 1815. The Assembly being 
strongly Democratic, a new Council of Appointment 
was promptly elected, of that political faith, its mem- 
bers being Jonathan Dayton of the Southern, Lucas 
Elmendorff of the Middle, Ruggles Hubbard of the 
Eastern, and Farrand Stranahan of the Western dis- 
trict. They were all Democrats, and the party behind 
them was, as was years afterward remarked of another 
organization, "very hungry and very thirsty," since for 
three years appointments had been chiefly under Fed- 
eralist control. A "clean sweep" of the offices was 
expected and was intended. Indeed, it was effected, 
but not with the expedition which was anticipated. 

For there at once arose sharp rivalries within the 
party, with Martin Van Buren, Ambrose Spencer, and 
DeWitt Clinton as the storm-centers. Van Buren was 
a State Senator and the acknowledged leader of the 
party in the Legislature, and he wanted to be Attorney- 
General. But in this ambition he was opposed by 
Spencer, who was jealous of the younger man's rapidly 
increasing popularity and influence, which were sur- 
passing his own, and who accordingly put forward 
John Woodworth as a candidate for the place. It will 
be remembered that Woodworth had formerly been 
Attorney-General, and had been displaced by the Fed- 
eralists in favor of Van Vechten, and that fact was of 
course a strong argument for his reappointment. 
Between the two the Council of Appointment 
was evenly divided. Ruggles supported Woodworth 



370 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1815 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

because he was his neighbor and friend, and Stranahan 
did so because he was entirely subject to Spencer's 
influence. Dayton and Elmendorff were subject to the 
will of the party "machine," and accordingly voted for 
Van Buren. That compelled the Governor to cast the 
deciding vote. He was reluctant to do it, yet he did 
not hesitate to vote for Van Buren. His reasons for 
the choice were doubtless several in number. In point 
of legal ability and fitness for the place, Van Buren 
was certainly the peer if not the superior of Wood- 
worth. But apart from that, it was no secret that Gov- 
ernor Tompkins strongly disapproved of Spencer's 
activities, rightly holding that a Judge should keep 
aloof from partisanship. Being a candidate for the 
Presidency, moreover, it was only human nature that 
Tompkins should incline — other things being equal — 
to that side which promised him the greatest political 
advantage, and there was no doubt that that was Van 
Buren's side. 

This was the beginning of a complete rupture 
between Tompkins and Judge Spencer. When the 
office of Secretary of State was to be filled there was 
a similar division in the Council. Spencer asked for 
the appointment of his friend Elisha Jenkins, who had 
formerly filled the place. Another candidate for it 
was Samuel Young, the Speaker of the Assembly. But 
the Governor, having the deciding vote, refused to 
accept either, and practically compelled the Council to 
elect Peter B. Porter. The latter had been a promi- 
nent Representative in Congress and as such had drafted 
and reported the resolutions calling for the War of 



1815] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 371 

1812; he had declined appointment as commanding 
general of the army; but he had brilliantly distin- 
guished himself at Chippewa and at Lundy's Lane, 
receiving therefor a gold medal from Congress; and 
he was afterward Secretary of War in John Quincy 
Adams's cabinet. One of the most universally respected 
men in America, his appointment as Secretary of State 
of New York was an honor and an adornment to that 
commonwealth. But it offended Spencer. Inciden- 
tally, no doubt, it greatly strengthened Tompkins's poli- 
tical position, though it would be ungracious to sug- 
gest that that was the reason for the Governor's 
insistence upon it. 

A third blow to Spencer was given in the election 
of a United States Senator to succeed Mr. German. 
Long in advance of the actual election Judge Spencer 
proposed John Armstrong as a candidate, partly on the 
same ground as that of Woodworth and Jenkins, that 
he had formerly filled the office; but also, no doubt, 
to provide a place for him and to "vindicate" him 
after his retirement in disgrace from the Secretaryship 
of War. Against this Governor Tompkins openly pro- 
tested, and in his opposition to Armstrong he was 
strongly seconded by Van Buren. Finding that Arm- 
strong's election was impossible, Judge Spencer had 
himself proposed as a candidate, by some of his friends, 
while the Governor and Van Buren advocated the elec- 
tion of Nathan Sanford. When the legislative caucus 
assembled to choose the party candidate an informal 
canvass showed that a majority favored Sanford. At 
that Van Buren, seeking party harmony and wishing 



372 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1R15 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

to give an opportunity for Spencer's graceful with- 
drawal, declared that he had reason to believe that 
Judge Spencer did not wish to be considered a candi- 
date, and indeed would not accept election. There- 
upon a committee was appointed, at the demand of 
Spencer's friends, to wait upon him and ascertain his 
wishes in the matter. The committee confidentially 
told Spencer that the majority of the caucus was against 
him; and in consequence it brought back from him 
the reply that the Judge was unwilling to be regarded 
as a candidate because he "would not put himself in 
competition with so young a man as Mr. Sanford"! 
In fact, Sanford was fourteen years the younger, being 
thirty-six while Spencer was fifty. Sanford was of 
course elected. 

These operations naturally cemented a close political 
friendship between Governor Tompkins and Mr. Van 
Buren. They also inclined Judge Spencer to ally him- 
self with anyone who was opposed to or was opposed 
by those gentlemen ; and thus he was led to span a 
breach of years and to renew his old-time friendship 
with DeWitt Clinton. At first, it is true, the antago- 
nism between Spencer and Clinton was intensified, the 
former urging that the Council of Appointment should 
remove Clinton from the Mayoralty of New York 
which he still held and which was the most lucrative 
and almost the most powerful office in the State. Tam- 
many Hall was insistent upon Clinton's deposition and 
instructed Dayton, a Tammany man, to vote for it, and 
Spencer directed Stranahan to do the same But Hub- 



1815] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 373 

bard and Elmendorff refused, making a deadlock in 
the Council, which the Governor hesitated to break 
with his vote. 

This hesitancy may have arisen in part from politi- 
cal considerations. Had he voted one way, the Gov- 
ernor would have incurred the hostility of the Clinton- 
ians, who were a powerful faction. Had he voted the 
other way, he would have incurred the enmity of Tam- 
many Hall, or Martling's Men, as that organization was 
still often called. In either case his campaign for the 
Presidency might have been unfavorably affected. 
There is, however, no doubt that he was reluctant on 
the merits of the case to see Clinton removed. That 
formidable man, having passed through the furor 
politicus of his earlier years, had ripened into scholar- 
ship and statesmanship comparable with the best in 
America. He had been efficiently loyal in the war, 
and heroic in the yellow fever epidemic which had 
scourged the city, and there was no serious fault of 
any kind to be alleged against his administration, which 
had lasted longer than that of any other Mayor of that 
city since Peter Stuyvesant, with the sole exception of 
Richard Varick. 

He was, however, marked for slaughter. Tammany 
Hall insisted upon it, and Tammany was then rhe 
dominant and representative faction of the party in 
New York City. The deed was finally effected through 
one of the strangest political combinations in the his- 
tory of the State. Gulian C. Verplanck, who after- 
ward was for many years one of the foremost jurists, 
theologians, scholars, and men of letters in New York, 



374 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1815 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

was at this time actively interested in politics as the 
leader of a small but highly intellectual faction of 
independents such as three-quarters of a century later 
would have been known as mugwumps. Conceiving 
an antagonism toward Clinton, presumably because the 
latter was a "practical" politician, Mr. Verplanck 
employed his brilliant literary talents in writing for the 
press a series of political papers attacking him with 
great severity. They were not all, it is true, directed 
against Clinton. Some, written from the Federalist 
point of view, were addressed to the Federalists, of 
whom indeed Mr. Verplanck was one, dissuading them 
from the Hartford Convention folly and urging them 
loyally to support the government. But those attacking 
Clinton attracted most attention and had most effect. 
The articles were signed "Abimelech Coody," and pur- 
ported to be written by a mechanic of that name. 

These articles did not pass without reply from Clin- 
ton himself, who wrote over the signature of "Travel- 
ler." He attributed Verplanck's enmity to the fact that 
while Clinton was Mayor and Verplanck was a student 
in Columbia College, the latter was indicted for leader- 
ship in a students' riot. "He has become," con- 
tinued Clinton, "the head of a political sect called the 
'Coodies,' of hybrid nature, composed of the combined 
spawn of Federalism and Jacobinism, and generated in 
the venomous passions of disappointment and revenge, 
without any definite character; neither fish nor flesh, 
nor bird nor beast, but a nondescript made up of 'all 



1815] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 375 

monstrous, all prodigious things.' " The name of 
"Goodies," thus given, stuck to Verplanck and his 
associates for many years. , 

Now there was by nature nothing in common between 
Verplanck and his chosen few on the one hand and the 
"machine politicians" of Martling's Long Room on the 
other. Yet in their common hostility to DeWitt Clin- 
ton a common ground of close alliance was found 
between the "Coodies" and Tammany Hall. This 
alliance was confirmed when Tammany agreed to sup- 
port Judge Radcliff, who was one of the "Coodies," 
for the Mayoralty in place of Clinton. Judge Spencer 
also joined the combination, making the alliance tri- 
partite. Pressure was first brought to bear upon Lucas 
Elmendorff, who as a college man of intellectual pro- 
clivities was receptive to the approaches of the 
"Coodies," and who finally agreed to vote for displac- 
ing Clinton with RadclifT provided the remaining 
member of the Council, Hubbard, would do the same 
and thus make the vote unanimous. 

Now, Ruggles Hubbard had been elected to the Sen- 
ate as a Clintonian. But he was a man of loose morals, 
spendthrift habits, and weak will, habitually embar- 
rassed with debts. When, therefore, emissaries from 
Martling's Long Room promised him the office of 
Sheriff of New York, worth ten thousand dollars a 
year, if he would vote against Clinton, he quickly 
yielded to the bribe. So the detestable "deal" was 
carried through. Tammany insisted, however, upon 
first making the grand sachem of that order, John 
Ferguson, Mayor, until he could be appointed Sur- 



376 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1815 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

veyor of the Port, after which Judge Radcliff was 
made Mayor. Hubbard was made Sheriff, and if he 
did not pay all his debts he was at least free from 
annoyance by his creditors. 

With these transactions DeWitt Clinton disappeared 
for a time — his foes fondly hoped it would prove to be 
forever— from public life. He even withdrew from 
his home in New York and went into retirement in the 
remote rural village of Newtown, Long Island, abjured 
politics, and devoted his attention to literary and 
scholarly pursuits. His removal from New York was 
probably a matter of pecuniary necessity. He had 
lost most of his fortune, and he had followed no business 
nor profession in which he could amass a competence, 
but had depended for support chiefly upon his official 
salary. His own family was large, and he sought to 
give its members the best obtainable education, and 
there were other relatives and friends hanging upon 
him. While not recklessly extravagant, he had been 
compelled by his official and social position to spend 
his income freely, and his lack of businesslike system 
in domestic economy made his disbursements larger 
than they should have been. The result was that when 
he was turned out of the Mayoralty he was heavily 
in debt and almost as insolvent as the wretched Hub- 
bard who had betrayed him. Naturally, therefore, he 
sought the seclusion and the economies of Newtown as 
a matter of necessity. But, as was said half a century 
later of a far greater man, "he knew to bide his time." 

Meantime Governor Tompkins was in the enjoyment 
of great and well-deserved political prosperity. He 



1815] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 377 

was free from the blame of Clinton's apparent ruin, 
and had shrewdly avoided incurring embarrassments 
in other directions. His popularity in New York was 
very great, and it was by no means inconsiderable in 
all the States of the Union. He had the favor of 
President Madison who, although disappointed in his 
declination of the invitation to enter the cabinet, still 
wished the Presidential succession to pass to him rather 
than to Monroe. There was, save for a single circum- 
stance, every prospect that it would pass to him. But 
that one exception, though for the time overlooked by 
him, was formidable and eventually proved fatal to 
him. That was the opposition of Ambrose Spencer. 
Though wearing the ermine of the highest judicial 
bench, he remained one of the most active, most 
ambitious, and most influential politicians in the State, 
versed in every trick of the politician's art, and with 
an unfailing readiness to be the friend or the foe of any 
man for the furtherance of his own ends. Rightly or 
wrongly, he charged Tompkins with prime responsi- 
bility for the defeat of his proteges, Woodworth and 
Jenkins, and above all his own defeat for the United 
States Senatorship. Thereafter he bent all the power 
and resources of his great intellectual ability to the 
compassing of Tompkins's discomfiture, with such 
results as we shall presently see. 

Meantime the Thirty-eighth Legislature pursued an 
interesting course. The Governor on February 23 
reported, in a special message, the treaty of Ghent, 
and, on the recommendation of the Assembly, he 
appointed a day of public thanksgiving, coinciding with 



378 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1815 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

that designated by President Madison. He also at the 
same time reported that the Federal government had 
contracted for the purchase of a farm near Plattsburgh, 
on Lake Champlain, for army camp purposes, and 
solicited the assent of the Legislature — an incident 
which may be regarded as the remote foreshadowing 
of the invaluable enterprise at the same place which 
was organized by General Leonard Wood in the days 
of the Great War. An act was passed providing for 
the cession of land to the government for military pur- 
poses. The Legislature disapproved a number of 
amendments of the Constitution of the United States 
which had been proposed by the Legislatures of Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia. These would have 
required a two-thirds vote of Congress for the admis- 
sion of a new State, for the imposing of an embargo, 
or for a declaring of war; would have excluded 
naturalized citizens from all civil offices, would have 
restricted the President to a single term, and would 
have forbidden the election of a President from the 
same State twice in succession. The session adjourned 
without day on April 18, 1815. 

The legislative elections of the spring of 1815 
showed the effects of the intestine feuds of the Demo- 
cratic party, and particularly of the scandalous per- 
formances in New York City, where Clinton had been 
removed from the Mayoralty which he had filled more 
efficiently and acceptably than any other incumbent of 
the office down to that time, and the unspeakable Hub- 
bard had been pitchforked into the Sheriff's office. 
The city sent a solid Federalist delegation to the 



1816] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 379 

Assembly, and this, with some Federalist gains else- 
where in the State, was sufficient to divide the new 
house evenly between the parties, each securing sixty- 
three members. The Democrats retained control of 
the Senate. 

In consequence of this result at the polls, the organ- 
ization of the Thirty-ninth Legislature was marked with 
such confusion and intrigue as had never before been 
known in the State. The session was, by law, to begin 
on January 30, 1816. But not all the members were 
present on that day, and as there were more Demo- 
crats present than Federalists, if a meeting had been 
held the former would have elected one of their num- 
ber Speaker and would have organized the Assembly 
as they pleased. All the Federalists accordingly 
absented themselves from the chamber, thus preventing 
the counting of a quorum. The next day all members 
were present save three, who were away by illness, and 
a meeting was held at which the Democrats elected 
Daniel Cruger to the Speakership by a majority of one 
vote, 62 to 61 — Mr. Cruger voting for himself. Aaron 
Clark, Democrat, was elected Clerk. 

There immediately thereafter arose a contest for a 
seat as a member from Ontario county. Peter Allen, 
Democrat, had received a certificate of election from 
the County Clerk, but his right to it was contested by 
Henry Fellows, a Federalist. It appeared that Fel- 
lows had actually received a majority of thirty votes. 
But in one town, where he received forty-nine votes, 
the Town Clerk wrote his name in the certificate in full, 
"Henry Fellows," while the inspectors in the duplicate 



380 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1816 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

return abbreviated it to "Hen. Fellows." Although 
there was of course not the slightest doubt that both 
forms of the name referred to the same man, the County 
Clerk rejected the forty-nine votes altogether, and issued 
the certificate to Allen, who was thus made to have 
nineteen majority. As the Assembly was already evenly 
divided between the parties, it was obvious that upon 
the decision of this contest depended the political con- 
trol of that body. William A. Duer, an eminent Fed- 
eralist from Dutchess county, presented the petition 
of Mr. Fellows and asked for its immediate considera- 
tion, but by a party vote the reading of it was post- 
poned until the next day, the Speaker ruling, despite 
protests, that Allen had a right to vote upon that 
question. 

A truce was then made for three days, when the 
strife was renewed over a Democratic motion to pro- 
ceed at once to the election of a Council of Appoint- 
ment. A Federalist motion was made to postpone 
such election until after the contest over the Ontario 
seat was decided. This latter motion the Speaker ruled 
out of order. Then another Federalist motion was 
made postponing the election for three days and order- 
ing that meanwhile the seat contest be taken up for 
decision. The Speaker permitted this to be put, but 
insisted upon the right of Peter Allen to vote upon it. 
A motion was then made that Mr. Allen be excluded 
from voting on a question in which he was himself 
interested. This the Speaker ruled out of order, and 
upon an appeal being taken insisted upon Mr. Allen's 
being permitted to vote. In such circumstances the 



1816] TOMPKINS'S THIRD TERM 381 

vote was 61 against the Speaker's ruling and 61 (includ- 
ing Allen's) for sustaining it. The Speaker thereupon 
gave the deciding vote in favor of himself, and declared 
his ruling sustained. Several other divisions were had, 
in all of which Allen was permitted to vote on ques- 
tions directly concerning himself. 

In such fashion the Assembly finally proceeded to 
the election of a Council of Appointment, and Darius 
Crosby, William Ross, Parley Keyes, and Archibald S. 
Clark, all Democrats, were elected — at least two of 
them owing their election to the vote of Peter Allen. 
Then, the purpose of keeping Allen in his seat having 
been achieved, the committee on elections immediately 
reported, unanimously, that Allen was not entitled to 
his seat and that Mr. Fellows should be seated in his 
place, and that report was adopted by the Assembly 
by a vote of 115 ayes to only a single nay — which, 
strange to say, was not that of Allen himself! Since 
that day there have been many contested seats, and 
some of the contests have been unjustly decided; but 
never in the history of New York, if of any State, has 
there been a more flagrant, brazen, and cynical perver- 
sion of right and justice than in that case. The Council 
of Appointment which was thus fraudulently elected 
had little to do, as practically all the offices were 
already filled by Democrats. The only important 
change was caused by the resignation of the office of 
Secretary of State by General Porter, and the appoint- 
ment of Robert Tillotson, an excellent man and a son 
of the former Secretary of State, Dr. Tillotson, to fill 
it. 



382 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1816 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The address of the Governor at this session of the 
Legislature was largely devoted to topics suggested by 
the war. In addition to these he recommended prose- 
cution of the Erie and Champlain canal schemes, and 
the Legislature presently adopted an act for further 
surveys and for soliciting Federal aid. He also recom- 
mended encouragement of manufacturers, and the Leg- 
islature passed an act continuing the statute for the 
chartering of corporations. The Legislature adopted 
resolutions heartily commending the heroic conduct of 
Captain Samuel Chester Reid for his defense of the 
little privateer "General Armstrong" at Fayal, when it 
was attacked in neutral waters by an overwhelming 
British force; and the Governor transmitted them to 
Captain Reid with a glowing letter of eulogy from his 
own pen. The Legislature adjourned without day on 
April 17, 1816. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 

THE year 1816 was big with politics, in New York 
and in the nation. It was the duodecennial year, 
in which both a President of the United States 
and a Governor of New York were to be chosen; and 
for both offices Daniel D. Tompkins was a candidate. 
As early as February 14 a caucus of the Democratic 
members of the Legislature, under the leadership of 
Martin Van Buren, unanimously instructed the New 
York Representatives in Congress to vote for him in 
the Congressional caucus for the Presidency; though, 
as we shall see, the same foxy leader afterward pre- 
vented them from doing so. A week later the Albany 
caucus unanimously renominated Tompkins for the 
Governorship, for his fourth term, and also Mr. Tayler 
for the Lieutenant-Governorship. Tompkins probably 
had little or no desire to be reelected Governor, because 
if elected President he would have to resign that office. 
But he felt that it was necessary for him to make the 
run in order to prevent the Federalists from carrying 
the State. We have seen that in the elections of 1815 
the Federalists made great gains. They were in fact 
so great as to encourage them to hope for a complete 
victory in 1816. 

It had been the purpose of the Federalists to nomi- 
nate William P. Van Ness for the Governorship. But 
this plan was abandoned as soon as the Democrats, 

383 



384 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL fisi6 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

through the illegal vote of Peter Allen, secured con- 
tinued control of the Council of Appointment; because 
if Van Ness resigned his place on the bench, the Coun- 
cil would fill it with a Democrat. So Rufus King, 
then a United States Senator, was nominated. His dis- 
tinguished abilities, high character, and immense pres- 
tige made him the most formidable candidate that could 
be put into the field, and the ticket was further 
strengthened by the naming of George Tibbits. of Troy, 
for Lieutenant-Governor. So strong was this ticket 
felt to be that there was little hope of any Democrat 
winning against it save Tompkins himself. Accord- 
ingly he accepted the renomination and made the race. 
The result demonstrated the wisdom of his course. 
The Federalists waged an aggressive campaign, keep- 
ing the Democrats everywhere continually on the defen- 
sive, and it was confessedly nothing but Tompkins's 
personal popularity and charm that saved the day for 
him. The result of the polling was 45,412 for Tomp- 
kins, and 38,647 for King. Against any other Demo- 
crat in the State, King would have had an easy victory. 
That reelection marked the zenith of Tompkins's 
career. His administration was in its ninth year and 
was about to be prolonged to its twelfth. It had been 
singularly free from scandals of any kind, and had been 
marked with some of the finest patriotic devotion in our 
country's history. Every favorable anticipation of the 
Governor had been abundantly fulfilled. Political 
opponents as well as followers acclaimed his purity of 
life, his courage of action, his unselfishness in patriot- 
ism, and his elevation of statesmanship. Of all the 




William Jay 

William Jay, jurist; born New York City, June 16, 1789; 
graduate from Yale, 1808; studied law; appointed by Governor 
Clinton first judge of Westchester county, 1820; elected and 
held office until superceded by Governor Bouck at the in- 
stance of the pro-slavery element in 1843; opposed extension 
of slavery in 1826 and thereafter; leader of the society of 
friends; wrote manv books on legal and religious subjects; 
died at Bedford, N. Y., October 14, 1858. 



1816] 



TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 385 



candidates at that time for the Presidency of the United 
States, there was not one more lit than he, if indeed 
there was any other quite so fit. 

Yet because of that very fitness he was doomed to 
defeat. Had he been less high-minded, had he been 
less a statesman and patriot and more a politician and 
partisan, he might have succeeded. For in that case 
he might have placated Ambrose Spencer, and have 
held Martin Van Buren true in his interests. As it 
was, he was openly opposed by the one and was betrayed 
by the other; and they were the two most influential 
politicians in the State at that time. If it be not unkind 
to advert to one of the frailties of a great man, what 
we have said of his relations with Van Buren may be 
repeated concerning those with Madison. 

There were in 1816 three principal candidates for 
the Presidency: Tompkins, Monroe, and Crawford. 
Morally, Tompkins was by far the best of the three. 
For while the others were men of generally high 
character, it is impossible to forget the discreditable 
performances of Monroe while he was Minister to 
France, or the disingenuous — to use no harsher term — 
intrigues of Crawford in the Monroe cabinet, as a 
result of which there were entailed upon us the Texas 
controversy and the Mexican War. Intellectually, 
Crawford may have outranked the others, though his 
margin above Tompkins was certainly not large. Mon- 
roe surpassed the others in "practical politics," but was 
objected to by many because his election would mean 
the continuance of the "Virginia dynasty." , 



386 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1816 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

We have said that Madison at first desired Tomp- 
kins to be his successor. He had that in mind when 
he asked the Governor to become Secretary of State, i 
He continued to cherish the same design for a time 
after Tompkins's patriotic declination of that invita- 
tion — partly because of gratitude for the simply incal- 
culable services which Tompkins rendered to him in 
the support of the war, and partly because of his per- 
sonal dislike of Monroe. But by the beginning of 1816 
his sentiments, or least his purposes, had changed. He 
was still grateful to Tompkins, but he could have no 
further need of his services — and has not a cynical phil- 
osopher told us that gratitude is an anticipation of 
favors yet to come? He disliked Monroe, but after, 
all Monroe was a Virginian. So presently the word 
went forth that Federal office-holders everywhere werei 
to support Monroe's candidacy, and that those in New 
York were to attack and discourage the candidacy of 
Tompkins. Thus Solomon Southwick was appointed 
postmaster at Albany for the chief purpose of having 
him revile and lampoon Tompkins and laud and sup- 
port Monroe in his paper, the Register. 

Van Buren's part in Tompkins's defeat was con- 
siderable, though it was veiled in subtlety, as were most 
of the political acts of that past master of furtive and 
devious intrigue. He did lead the Legislative caucus 
to direct the Representatives to support Tompkins. 
But when the caucus met he saw to it that the New York 
members did not fulfill the instructions of the Legisla- 
ture. Had they solidly and aggressively declared 
themselves for Tompkins, he might have been nomi- 



1816] 



TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 387 



nated. Instead, they "played a waiting game," declin- 
ing to commit themselves until they could ascertain 
the general drift of sentiment. The outcome of it was 
that nobody knew or cared how they finally voted, 
and again, as had happened several times before from 
similar causes, the influence of the greatest State in 
the Union was frittered away into nothingness. What- 
ever Tompkins, in the magnanimity of his generous 
nature, may have thought of Van Buren's performance, 
there was no question what Tompkins's successful rival 
thought of it. Monroe felt that he owed his nomina- 
tion to Van Buren, and acted upon that feeling. 

Ambrose Spencer was from first to last an outspoken 
advocate of the nomination of Crawford. That was 
not because he had any special predilection for the 
Georgian. But he was bitterly opposed to Tompkins, 
and he did not deem it good policy to support Mon- 
roe because of the widespread antipathy to the "Vir- 
ginia dynasty" which prevailed throughout New York, 
save among the Federal office-holders. For that antip- 
athy there was of course good cause. For six terms 
out of seven, for twenty-four years out of twenty-eight, 
the Presidency had been occupied by a Virginian. 
It was high time for a President to be chosen from 
some other State, and from a northern State. Indeed, 
New York, which by this time had passed Virginia and 
become the first State of the Union in population, might 
well have been regarded as entitled to the honor, which 
a majority of the other States would have ungrudgingly 
accorded to it. But as had been the case once or twice 
before, and as has been the case several times since, 



388 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1816 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

New York's interests were sacrificed by jealousies and 
factional or personal animosities among New Yorkers 
themselves. So on grounds of personal spite Judge 
Spencer, the most powerful political leader in the State, 
threw all his influence against the New York candi- 
date and in favor not, indeed, of a Virginian, but of 
a man from still farther south. In this Spencer was 
aided by John Armstrong, who of course was bitter 
against Madison and Monroe as well as against 
Tompkins. 

It was indeed due to the influence and the intrigues 
of Spencer that Van Buren was enabled to play his 
double game with the Congressional delegation. For 
while Van Buren could control the Legislature, the 
Representatives in Congress took their orders from 
Spencer. While, therefore, they were instructed by the 
Legislature to support Tompkins, they were instructed 
by Spencer to support Crawford. Between the two, 
they were quite willing to do nothing. When the mem- 
bers of Congress assembled at Washington and the 
time arrived for the caucus, an informal canvass showed 
that Crawford was decidedly in the lead. "I have 
not a particle of doubt," says Jabez Hammond, who 
was very intimately concerned in the whole business, 
being himself one of the New York Representatives in 
Congress, "that as between Crawford and Monroe, a 
majority were in favor of the former." But the admin- 
istration faction, favorable to Monroe, quickly and 
energetically busied itself and secured postponement 
of the caucus until "influence" of some sort could be 
applied to enough members to make a majority for 



1816] TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 389 

Monroe. The result was, when the caucus was finally 
held, that Monroe received 65 votes and Crawford 54. 
None were cast for Tompkins. 

That this was a bitter disappointment to Tompkins 
goes without saying. Nor can it be denied that he had 
ample ground for feeling that he had been betrayed by 
those of his own household. But just as in the hour 
of his greatest power and triumph he had been mag- 
nanimous and generous to his foes, so in the hour of 
adversity and betrayal he exhibited an admirable 
equanimity. A smaller man would, in those circum- 
stances, have refused with resentment the "consolation 
prize" of the Vice-Presidency, which was offered to 
him. And indeed even he might not unworthily have 
declined it, preferring to remain as Governor of New 
York. But he was unwilling to incur even the appear- 
ance of pique, and he had already expressed his dis- 
inclination to serve longer as Governor, and therefore 
he unhesitatingly accepted the nomination for Vice- 
President. That did not, however, require his imme- 
diate retirement from the Governorship, to which, as 
we have seen, he was reelected for his fourth time in 
the spring of 1816. 

At that election, because of the personal popularity 
and prestige of Tompkins, the Democrats regained the 
strength in the Legislature which they had lost in the 
preceding year. New York City returned to the Demo- 
cratic ranks, and that party thus secured more than 
two-thirds of the members of the Assembly. All the 
Senators elected were Democrats, excepting those from 



390 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1816-17 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Eastern district; a result which was in part due to 
its reapportionment of the State which had been made, 
and which had transferred Albany, Otsego, Schoharie, 
and Chenango counties to the Middle district. 

The new Legislature, the Fortieth, met in special 
session on November 5, 1816, for the choice of Presi- 
dential Electors. David Woods, Democrat, was chosen 
Speaker by 84 votes to 33 for James Emott, Federalist. 
The Governor's address betrayed no trace of political 
feeling, but was confined to a few non-political topics, 
chief among them being the very urgent need of prison 
reform. As a result of his wise recommendations the 
Legislature enacted a measure providing for the 
employment of convicts at useful labor, not alone in 
shops within the prison walls but also on the roads and 
canals in various parts of the State. The session was 
adjourned on November 12. 

The regular session of the same Legislature began 
on January 14, 1817, and the Governor's address, the 
last which Mr. Tompkins was to deliver, was devoted 
to the one subject of the abolition of slavery, a reform 
which he advocated with convincing earnestness. Fol- 
lowing his enlightened leadership the Legislature 
enacted a bill providing, in exact accordance with his 
recommendation, that on and after July 4, 1827, human 
slavery should forever cease and be abolished in the 
State of New York. This was the crowning achieve- 
ment of Governor Tompkins's administration as the 
Chief Executive of New York, and to it he is entitled 
to full, sole, and absolute credit, despite the fact that 



817] TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 391 

the dilatory Legislature delayed actually passing the 
measure until after he had presented his resignation of 
the Governorship. We must, of course, remember 
with gratitude the men who had for some time been 
advocating that great reform, conspicuous among them 
being Cadwallader D. Colden, William Jay, Peter 
Augustus Jay, and several leaders of the Society of 
Friends. But all their efforts would have failed, or 
at least would have been indefinitely postponed, had it 
not been for the sympathetic cooperation and leader- 
ship of Daniel D. Tompkins. 

It was one of the most lamentable tragedies of New 
York politics that this achievement— Hammond, who 
had little love for him, calls it "godlike"— was not 
permitted to be the final act of Tompkins in public 
life. He himself intended it to be, at least so far as 
this State was concerned. Martin Van Buren, indeed, 
considered a plan, quite characteristic of himself, to 
have Tompkins retain the Governorship while serving 
as Vice-President. There was apparently no constitu- 
tional or legal prohibition of such an arrangement. 
But Tompkins rejected the suggestion with scorn. On 
February 24 he sent to the Legislature his resignation 
of the Governorship. It was accepted, of course, and 
each house adopted resolutions appreciative of his ser- 
vices to the State. These might be described as lauda- 
tory, though it was not possible for any praise to be 
too high for a character and a career which thus far, 
during many years of more than ordinarily strenuous 
labors and conflicts, had been "without fear and with- 






392 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

out reproach." From Albany he passed to Washing- 
ton, where he greatly adorned the Vice-Presidency of 
the nation and the presidency of the United States 
Senate. 

A little later, partisan spite hawked at him and 
maligned his character with abominable insinuations, 
and partisan exigencies dragged him back into the 
ruck of factional strife, with the result that his life 
was clouded with trouble and disaster and was untimely 
ended. Upon those lamentable occurrences we must 
hereafter touch in their due order. They were an 
unwelcome epilogue to a great career which logically 
ended in February, 1817. 

Meantime, the certainty that Tompkins would 
resign the Governorship had caused much perturba- 
tion among the politicians of the State, and particularly 
in Tompkins's own wing of the Democratic party, of 
which Van Burrn was the leader. This was due to the 
prospect that DeWitt Clinton would return to activity 
and to power, and become Governor of the State. 
That extraordinary man had lately been, as we have 
seen, expelled from office and practically ruined in his 
private fortunes. But at the irresistible demand of 
the public he had been made the head, in January, 1816, 
of a new Canal commission, which went to work so 
efficiently as greatly to restore his prestige and to recom- 
mend him to popular favor. Then a reconciliation was 
effected between him and Ambrose Spencer, partly 
through the mediation of Mrs. Spencer, who was 
Clinton's sister, and partly because Spencer realized 
that he needed Clinton's aid in his own fight with 



1817] TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 393 

Tompkins and Van Buren. So it came to pass that 
when the Legislature of 1817 met, it was found that 
there was a formidable sentiment in favor of Clinton 
for the Governorship. 

That was the circumstance which moved Van Buren 
in desperation to consider the plan of having Tomp- 
kins hold two offices. Finding that Tompkins would 
not listen to that, Van Buren resorted to another device 
which in later years would have been adopted as a 
matter of course, but which then, under the old Con- 
stitution, was of dubious propriety and legality. That 
was, that the Lieutenant-Governor should act as Gov- 
ernor for the remainder of the term. That, of course, 
is what would be done to-day. It was what one clause 
of the old Constitution apparently contemplated, pro- 
viding that the Lieutenant-Governor should exercise all 
the functions of the office of Governor "until another 
be chosen." So Van Buren urged that the Lieutenant- 
Governor should serve until the next regular time for 
a Gubernatorial election. But another clause of the 
Constitution provided that as often as the Governor- 
ship became vacant some one should be elected to fill 
it. Reluctantly, therefore, Van Buren accepted the 
inevitable; and the Legislature passed by overwhelm- 
ing majorities in both houses a bill which had been 
suggested by Tompkins in his letter of resignation, pro- 
viding for the election of a new Governor at the April 
election of 1817. 

Meantime, of course, John Tayler, the Lieutenant- 
Governor, exercised the functions of the office from 
the date of Tompkins's resignation to that of the instal- 



394 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

lation of his elected successor. Mr. Tayler was a man 
of limited education but of high character and fine 
natural intelligence and shrewdness. He did not 
regard himself as having succeeded to the Governor- 
ship, and never took the oath of office as Governor, but 
served as Acting-Governor under the Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor's oath. He was always described in official 
documents during the four months of his incumbency as 
Lieutenant-Governor, though Federal officials appear 
to have addressed him as Governor. 

The most important act of the Fortieth Legislature 
after the resignation of Governor Tompkins and the 
enactment of the emancipation measure which he had 
urged, was that of April 15, 1817, which fully com- 
mitted the State to the canal project which DeWitt 
Clinton had been urging. That was adopted by prac- 
tically a two-thirds vote of both houses, those in favor 
of it being Clintonian Democrats and Federalists, and 
those in opposition being the Tammany Democrats of 
New York City and Van Buren's followers elsewhere. 
Of course its adoption was a great triumph for Clinton 
and materially strengthened his campaign for the Gov- 
ernorship, which was then drawing to a close. The 
Legislature adjourned without day immediately after 
the passage of that bill. 

The new Council of Appointment was elected on 
February 13, and in its composition was another tri- 
umph for Clinton. Its members were Walter Bowne 
of the Southern, John Noyes of the Middle, John I. 
Prendergast of the Eastern, and Henry Bloom of the 
Western district. The first-named was under the 



1817] 



TOMPKINS AND THE PRESIDENCY 395 



influence of Tammany Hall, and was in consequence 
unfriendly to Clinton, but the others were all followers 
of Judge Spencer, and in consequence, upon his recon- 
ciliation with Clinton, became staunch supporters of the 
latter. Only one important change in office was made, 
but of course such influence as was exerted by the 
Council through its patronage was favorable to Clin- 
ton. The one change referred to was the removal of 
Robert Tillotson from the office of Secretary of State 
and the appointment of Charles D. Cooper in his place ; 
which was done while Mr. Bowne was absent from a 
meeting of the Council. Mr. Tillotson had filled th 
place admirably and Dr. Cooper filled it admirably 
after him. There was no political reason for the 
change, or any public reason, but it seems to have 
been made solely because Dr. Cooper had married the 
adopted daughter of Lieutenant-Governor Tayler, who 
at that time, as Acting-Governor, was president of 
the Council. It was simply a bit of nepotism and 
"honest graft." 



CHAPTER XIX 
THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 

DE WITT CLINTON, we have said, "knew to 
bide his time," and his time came at last. It 
began to dawn in the fall of 1815, when a great 
meeting of merchants and other citizens of New York 
City was held to promote the scheme of a canal system 
connecting the Hudson River with Lake Erie and Lake 
Champlain. It was largely due to Clinton's former 
advocacy of such a scheme that the meeting was held. 
It was the sprouting of the seed which he had planted. 
Fittingly, therefore, he came from his rural retirement 
and was called upon to address the gathering. He did 
so in a masterly manner, setting forth not only the 
feasibility of the plan from an engineering point of 
view, but also the financial arrangements necessary for 
its achievement. With moving eloquence he declared 
that the canal, in the extent of its route, the counties 
which it traversed and connected, and the consequences 
which it would produce, would be without a parallel 
in the history of mankind. "It remains," he said, "for 
a free State to create a new era in history, and to erect 
a work more stupendous, more magnificent, and more 
beneficial than has hitherto been achieved by the human 
race." 

In that, as the event showed, there was no exaggera 
tion; and such was the contagious power of Clinton's 
eloquence that he was able to impart to others his splen- 

396 



THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 397 

did vision. The meeting in New York adopted a 
powerfully-worded memorial to the Legislature, and 
appointed Clinton chairman of a committee to pre- 
sent it to that body personally. His journey from 
New York to Albany resembled the progress of a tri- 
umphant monarch, with great mass-meetings and fa- 
vorable memorials at every town, and when he reached 
Albany and presented the address from the New York 
meeting the Legislature could do nothing else than 
create the new Canal commission which was asked 
for and make Clinton its head. 

A year later Clinton was able to present the com- 
mission's report of the canal project, in finished form 
and at the psychological moment. The Champlain 
canal was estimated to cost only $871,000. The Erie 
canal was a stupendous work. It was to be 350 miles 
long and forty feet wide, with no fewer than seventy- 
seven lifting locks, and its cost was estimated at $4,571,- 
813. The sum needed for both was nearly five and a 
half million dollars, a huge sum for those times. But 
Clinton confidently declared that the funds could be 
obtained by a loan, which could be repaid from the 
profits of the canals without a dollar of taxation upon 
the State. We have seen that he was not a successful 
financier in his personal and domestic affairs. In this 
great public business he showed himself a master of 
finance. He impressed the Legislature with the sound- 
ness of his views, and in consequence that body enacted 
the measure to which we have already referred, com- 
mitting the State to the undertaking. 



398 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 8 i7 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

That action, taken less than a fortnight before the 
election of a successor to Governor Tompkins, would in 
itself have been enough to assure Clinton's triumph at 
the polls in almost any circumstances. But long before 
that action his election was amply assured. Down to 
this time candidates for the Governorship had been 
selected by legislative party caucuses. But early in 
1817 Judge Spencer, acting in Clinton's interest, 
organized a strong and successful revolt against that 
system, and in favor of a general State nominating 
convention. The argument in favor of the change 
was sound and quite unanswerable. Many of the 
counties, it was pointed out, were represented in the 
Legislature by Senators and Assemblymen of a single 
party. Thus their citizens of the other party, who 
might be very nearly a majority, were left without 
representation. If a certain county were represented 
in the Legislature by none but Federalists, its Demo- 
cratic citizens would have no voice whatever in the 
selection of a candidate for Governor. 

There can be little doubt that this argument was put 
forward and the change of nominating methods was 
demanded by Judge Spencer chiefly, if not solely, in 
the interest of Clinton. Although Spencer had secured 
the election of three out of four members of the Coun- 
cil of Appointment, he was very doubtful whether he 
could get a majority of the Democratic legislators to 
vote for Clinton's nomination for Governor, though 
he felt quite sure that he could get a majority of a 
popular State convention to do so. Accordingly, as 
early as February 4 a convention was held at Albany, 






1817] THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 399 

at which it was resolved that at least in all counties 
which had no Democratic representatives in the Legis- 
lature there should be appointed Democratic delegates, 
either to a general State convention of such delegates 
from all counties, or to the legislative caucus of Demo- 
cratic Assemblymen from other counties; and three 
delegates were appointed. The example of Albany 
was followed by other counties, and on March 25 the 
first State convention in New York for nominating a 
Governor was held, at Albany. 

In advance of this there was much activity. Spencer 
and the Clintonians were of course working earnestly 
for Clinton. On the other hand, Van Buren and the 
Tammany managers in New York City were desper- 
ately setting about to find somebody to beat him in 
the convention. Their first choice was Joseph C. 
Yates, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, and 
a second cousin of Robert Yates, the former Chief- 
Justice. He was a man of fine character and ability, 
and of much personal popularity, and had specially 
commended himself to the State by being the chief 
founder of Union College. But he possessed the same 
trait of political changeableness which had been so 
conspicuous in his kinsman, who had been a Federalist 
candidate for Governor in one election and an Anti- 
Federalist candidate for the same office in the next. 
Joseph Yates had once been a strong Clintonian, sup- 
porting DeWitt Clinton for the Presidency of the 
United States. Then he had become an equally strong 
supporter of Tompkins, at a time when the estrange- 
ment between him and Clinton was so great that to be 



400 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

a friend of one was almost necessarily tantamount to 
being a foe of the other. However, Yates was prob- 
ably never really hostile to Clinton. It is certain that 
he was always a hearty supporter of the canal scheme. 
Van Buren's scheme was thus to put forward a former 
and probably present friend of Clinton as Clinton's 
rival, in hope of thus drawing away others of Clinton's 
friends; and although the opponents of Clinton were 
supposed to be opponents of his canal scheme, he would 
put forward a friend of the canals in order to win sup- 
port from the canal party in his campaign against the 
canal leader! 

There never was a political intrigue more thoroughly 
characteristic of Van Buren's tortuous mental processes 
than this, and never was one more completely unsuc- 
cessful. Not one of Clinton's supporters was lured 
away by it, while many of Van Buren's own anti- 
Clinton contingent were so enraged at being asked to 
support a Clintonian that they deserted him and went 
over to the other side, declaring that if they were to 
support any Clintonian it would be Clinton himself. 
As for Judge Yates, he gave the scheme no countenance, 
but some days before the meeting of the State con- 
vention declared that in no circumstances would lie 
accept a nomination for Governor. 

At that, Van Buren turned to Peter B. Porter. Him 
we have already heard of as a man of splendid parts, 
one of the few real heroes of our army in the War 
of 1812, and Secretary of State of New York. There 
could scarcely have been a worthier candidate for Gov- 
ernor than he. Yet there was a certain incongruity in 




John Tayler 

Tohn Tavler 6th governor (1817); born in New York City, 
Iulf+ 1742-ta 1760 removed to Lake George, subsequently 
fo Oswego; member of council between whites and Indians 
member of provincial congress in 1776-1777 and of councxl I of 
afTtv, 1777 member of assembly from Albany at 1st, 2nd 4th, 
9 1 and 10th sessions, 1777-1787; canal °^|™J g( £g ! 
county judge, 1797; regent, 1802; state senator 802 80413, 
capitol commissioner, 1804; lieutenant governor 1811 1 81 3 17 
yi c P e chancellor 1814; acan^o, Febru r> JgJ^ 

c^nSr,^^^ 

provoked challenge from Burr; died at Alban>, IN. x, i 
19, 1829. 



( } 

r 



1817] THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 401 

his being put forward as the opponent of Clinton by 
a leader who relied for support chiefly upon Tam- 
many Hall, for Porter was as ardent an advocate of the 
canal as Clinton himself, and he refused to have any 
fellowship with Tammany Hall or even to recognize 
its support of himself. However, General Porter was 
ambitious and assented to the presentation of his name 
in the convention. He was overwhelmingly defeated, 
so badly that it appeared that he would have been 
defeated if the nomination had been left solely to the 
Legislature. The convention was composed of 93 
members of the Legislature and 32 delegates from the 
:ounties which had no Democratic representation in 
the Legislature. Of the members of the Legislature 
60 voted for Clinton and 33 for Porter; and of the dele- 
gates 25 for Clinton and 7 for Porter. 

DeWitt Clinton was thus the regular candidate 
of the Democratic party, and was frankly accepted 
as such by Van Buren and all others excepting Tam- 
many Hall and a few personal enemies of Clinton, 
who controlled few if any votes but their own He was 
also the candidate, in effect, of the Federalists, who 
nominated no candidate of their own and manyof whom, 
led by Jonas Piatt, the former candidate for Gov- 
ernor and at this time a Justice of the Supreme Court; 
William W. Van Ness, also a Supreme Court Justice 
and one of the most brilliant men in the State; and 
Jacob Van Rensselaer, a consummate political leader 
and former Secretary of State, openly spoke and dili- 
gently worked in Clinton's behalf. This support was 



402 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

given to Clinton by the Federalists largely because they 
were as a party strongly in favor of the canals and a 
general system of State aid for public works. 

Tammany Hall, however, was implacable in its hos- 
tility to Clinton and to the canal. Whether it was 
against him because of his canal scheme, or against 
the canal scheme because it was his, is not altogether 
clear. Certain it is that it went to the extreme of vio- 
lent ridicule and denunciation of both, and when he 
won the nomination it openly bolted the result of the 
convention and announced its purpose to support 
General Porter. Of course General Porter did not 
sanction its support of him, and declined to consider 
himself a candidate, though he was powerless to pre- 
vent Tammany from distributing in every part of the 
State its ballots with his name printed upon them. In 
this campaign the Tammany men who had thus bolted 
the regular party wore bucks' tails as badges on their 
hats, and thus became historically known as the "Buck- 
tails" or Bucktail party. The result of the election was 
of course a foregone conclusion, and was more over- 
whelming than that of any other in the history of the 
State. DeWitt Clinton received 43,310 votes, of Demo- 
crats and Federalists alike. Porter received 1,479 
votes, of the "Bucktails" of Tammany Hall. Mr. 
Tayler was by a similar vote reelected Lieutenant- 
Governor. The Democrats secured all the Senators 
who were chosen that year, and a strong majority in 
the Assembly. 

This was a victory at the polls unique in New York 
history. Unsurpassed, if not unrivalled, also was 



1817] THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 403 

Clinton's moral victory. Only a short time before he 
had been beaten, humiliated, expelled from office, and 
all but ruined in his personal estate, as few men have 
ever been. Now he was at a stroke placed in the high- 
est office in the State, and not as the result of politi- 
cal intriguing but by a practically non-partisan upris- 
ing of the people because of their recognition of the 
superlative value to them of a project with which he 
had identified himself and upon the success of which 
he had staked his political all. We have said that the 
splendid climax of Tompkins's career was attained at 
the moment of his resignation of the Governorship. 
It might with similar propriety be said that DeWitt 
Clinton attained the summit of his career upon his 
election to the Governorship, or perhaps at his inau- 
guration as Governor on July 1, 1817, and his begin- 
ning actual construction work on the Erie canal three 
days later. There were many notable passages in his 
record thereafter, but there were also many regrettable 
blunders, so that he never again stood quite where he 
did in those triumphant days when the people of the 
State recalled him from retirement and made him their 
Chief Executive with a mandate from them to build 
the canals which he had planned. 

Beyond doubt he showed himself a great construc- 
tive statesman, one of the ablest that ever filled the 
Governorship of the State. Yet he was never able 
entirely to lose the politician in the statesman, or to 
subordinate his own personal feelings to his public 
duties. It should have been obvious to him, as it was 
to others, that his enormous majority over General 



404 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Porter was due to the fact that those who were opposed 
to him did not vote at all. That is demonstrated by 
the figures. He had 43,310 and Porter 1,479 votes, 
a total of 44,789. But those were scarcely half of 
the voters of the State. In the preceding election of 
1815 Tompkins had received 45,412 and King 38,647 
votes, a total of 84,059. The fall from 84,059 to 
44,789, though there had been a natural increase in the 
number of qualified voters in the State, shows how 
many thousands and tens of thousands declined to vote 
for Clinton, though there was nobody else to vote for. 
As a matter of fact, Clinton, despite his enormous 
majority, actually got fewer votes than Tompkins had 
got in 1815. It is probable that the bulk of his sup- 
port came from Federalists. The majority of Demo- 
crats throughout the State would not vote for him, but 
they would not follow the example of Tammany in 
bolting the regular party nomination and voting for 
Porter, so they did not vote at all. 

A more politic politician, or one less self-willed, 
would have recognized this fact and its significance, 
and would have done what he could to conciliate his 
own party and to win its support. Not so Clinton. 
He made no overtures whatever to Van Buren and his 
followers, not even to the latter when some of them 
parted company with Van Buren and showed a readi- 
ness to become followers of Clinton. He was of course 
loyal to and appreciative of his old friends. But he 
in a notable manner cultivated intimacy and confidence 
with those Federalist leaders who had favored his 
election, such as Justices Van Ness and Piatt, and 



1817] THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 405 

Thomas J. Oakley. This course he justified by say- 
ing that party lines had become so broken and prin- 
ciples so undefined and mixed that there was little 
difference between them, and that there would in the 
near future inevitably be a general reorganization and 
realignment of both parties. In that he was quite cor- 
rect, as subsequent events showed; but it was poor 
politics for him so openly to act upon that principle. 
Soon after his inauguration he called the Council of 
Appointment together, and there was general expecta- 
tion that sweeping changes would be made. In fact 
there were very few, and there were only two that 
were purely political in character. The Council late 
in August removed John L. Broome and appointed 
Benjamin Ferris as County Clerk in New York, and 
removed Robert McComb, son of the notorious land 
speculator, Alexander McComb, and appointed John 
W. Wyman as Clerk of the Circuit. The men removed 
were both active members of Tammany Hall and had 
made themselves conspicuous in the bolt against Clin- 
ton's nomination. Many requests, appeals, and demands 
were made upon him for the removal of other officials 
and the appointment of his own friends in their places, 
but he resolutely refused, on the ground that the 
Council would not countenance such changes. It is 
probable that he himself deemed it politic to make as 
few changes as possible. Indeed, he was becoming 
convinced of the evil of such prostitution of the public 
service as had so greatly prevailed, and was getting 
ready to recommend abolition of the whole CounciJ 



406 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1817 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

of Appointment system. His course, however, did not 
profit him. The office-holders showed him little grati- 
tude for permitting them to retain their places, while 
the office-seekers were resentful at his refusal to give 
them the places they coveted. 

One noteworthy act of the early part of his adminis- 
tration was the establishment of the custom of observ- 
ing a yearly Thanksgiving day. This had been 
attempted by John Jay in 1795, and indeed one 
Thanksgiving day was then observed. But it met 
with so widespread disapproval that Governor Jay did 
not repeat the experiment. People seemed to think 
that it contained some covert attempt to impose an 
official state church upon them. But when, in 1817, 
Clinton designated the second Thursday of November 
as a day of public thanksgiving, there was general 
approval, so that the practice was unhesitatingly fol- 
lowed in every succeeding year. 

The beginning of the Erie canal was, however, the 
supreme achievement of the first months of his adminis- 
tration. That gigantic work was undertaken on the 
Fourth of July, 1817, and before the end of summer 
Clinton was able to write to a friend that it was pro 
ceeding finely. Ten miles of it would be finished that 
season, and within the estimates of cost and time. This 
auspicious result was attained by the contractors' use 
of machinery which, primitive as it was and con- 
temptible as it would seem now, after a hundred years, 
then seemed as wonderful as the gigantic steam shovels 
in the Culebra Cut appeared to the astonished specta- 



1817] THE TRIUMPH OF CLINTON 407 

tors of work at Panama. He had inherited the canal 
scheme from his uncle, he had made it the chief hobby 
of his life, he had won the Governorship on it as an 
issue, and now he was "making good." 



CHAPTER XX 
DE WITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 

THE Forty-first Legislature of the State of New 
York assembled at Albany on January 27, 1818. 
Having been elected simultaneously with DeWitt 
Clinton, the Assembly naturally contained a strong 
majority of his political supporters. As at the polls, 
this majority was composed partly of Clintonian Demo- 
crats and partly of Federalists. So overwhelming was 
it that no opposition to it was attempted in the organi- 
zation of the house, and accordingly David Woods, 
of Washington county, an enthusiastic advocate of the 
canals, was elected Speaker by ninety-seven votes. No 
other candidate was named, and the opponents of 
Woods contented themselves with not voting at all. 

The Governor's address was one of the longest, most 
elaborate, and most statesmanlike that had ever been 
presented to the Legislature. Indeed, in the scope of 
its survey of State interests it may well be said to have 
surpassed them all. Other Governors had discussed 
two, three, or four salient points, and passed all others 
over with light mention or none at all. Clinton con- 
sidered in detail practically every important issue th.r 
was before the State, and brought into prominence sev- 
eral the importance of which had not been generally 
recognized. Naturally he gave prominence to canals 
and river improvement, but he paid comparable atten- 
tion to roads, agriculture, common schools, colleges 

408 



1818] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 409 

and professional schools, public lands, prison reform, 
pauperism, the militia, State finances, banking and cur- 
rency, and relations with the Indian tribes. From first 
to last it was free from personalities and factional 
politics, and was instinct with constructive statesman- 
ship of an elevated and progressive type. 

Despite the intense political antagonisms which soon 
arose, moreover, Clinton's address was effective in 
securing the enactment of much valuable legislation. 
During that session the Legislature provided for a four 
years' course of study for the degree of doctor of 
medicine. A joint committee of the two houses 
presented a most interesting and profitable report on 
the agricultural interests of the State, and recommended 
the creation of a Department of Agriculture, or Board 
of Agriculture, as a part of the State) government, 
supplemented by a State Agricultural Society and 
subordinate agricultural society in each county. A 
State agricultural fund was to be provided by taking 
for the purpose fifty per cent, of the license fees of 
taverns, which fees were to be considerably increased 
for the purpose, and this fund was to be apportioned 
among the county societies to provide lectures, prizes 
at agricultural exhibitions, etc. During the session the 
new State Capitol was completed at a cost of $1 10,685, 
of which sum the city of Albany paid $34,200, and 
Albany county $3,000. The Legislature adjourned on 
April 21. 

Although DeWitt Clinton was at this time at the 
height of his power and political prosperity, he was 
confronted with the most formidable opposition he had 






410 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1818 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ever known. This opposition was led by the New 
York faction formerly known as Martling's Men and 
later as the Tammany Society, or Tammany Hall. 
All the members of the Assembly from New York 
county belonged to that faction, and with the single 
exception of Cadwallader Colden they were all 
intensely hostile to Clinton. In view of the fact that 
the Erie canal became one of the chief contributors to 
the growth, the wealth, and the general greatness of 
New York City, there is a bitter irony in the recollec- 
tion that these New York City representatives were 
resolutely opposed to that enterprise, and indeed that 
their hostility to Clinton was chiefly based upon his 
advocacy of that and other great plans of internal 
improvement for the State. 

But the opposition to Clinton was not confined to 
New York City. Other Democrats, throughout the 
State, allied themselves with the Tammany contingent. 
They were not members of the Tammany Society, and 
did not wish to be called by its name. But they 
adopted the name of a piece of the Tammany insignia. 
Members of that order on some occasions wore the short 
tails of buck deer in their hats, in lieu of cockades, and 
these, as already stated, were used as a campaign badge 
in 1817; wherefore the anti-Clinton faction became 
known as the Bucktail party. The name was given to it 
by the Clintonians in derision, but it was soon accepted 
and came into general use by both friends and foes of 
Tammany. Although, as already stated, the Bucktails in 
the Assembly were so few that they made no contest 
over the Speakership, they comprised some men of 






1818] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 411 

commanding ability, including Ogden Edwards, Clark- 
son Crolius, and Erastus Root. In the Senate the 
faction was much stronger in numbers. It comprised 
thirteen of the twenty-seven members of that house, 
led by Martin Van Buren, while there were only seven 
who could be counted upon to support the Governor. 
Seven other Democrats were neutral, and the remain- 
ing five Senators, led by Abraham Van Vechten, were 
Federalists. 

Great interest centered, as usual, in the election of 
the Council of Appointment. As the Assembly had a 
strong Clintonian majority, its inclination was to 
choose a Council composed of the Governor's friends. 
This, however, was not possible, for the reason that 
it was necessary to select one Senator from each of the 
four districts, and there was not a Clintonian Senator in 
each of them. Van Buren, one of the most adroit of 
wirepullers and conspirators, wished to have a Council 
chosen which should be nominally favorable to Clin- 
ton, so that he would be popularly held responsible for 
its acts, and yet which should in fact be by no means 
subservient to him. In this design the "Fox of Kinder- 
hook," as Van Buren began to be known, was success- 
ful. The practice was for the Assembly to elect Sena- 
tors to the Council who had been selected by caucuses 
of the Assemblymen from their respective districts. 
From the Southern district the Tammany men, or 
Bucktails, unhesitatingly designated a bitter anti- 
Clintonian in the person of Peter R. Livingston. In 
the Eastern district there was only one Senator who 
professed to be friendly to Clinton. That was Henry 



412 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1818 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Yates, who was duly elected. But his brother, Judge 
Yates, was already chosen as the anti-Clintonian can- 
didate for the Governorship at the next election, and 
he accordingly was drawn away from support of the 
Governor. In the Western district there were two 
Clintonian Senators who were candidates for the Coun- 
cil and who persisted in their rivalry, with the result 
that neither won, but Henry Seymour, an opponent 
of Clinton and a close friend of Van Buren, was 
chosen. In the Middle district the Senator chosen 
was Dr. Jabez D. Hammond, the historian, a supporter 
of Clinton. In the last analysis, therefore, the Council 
stood two resolutely against Clinton, one for him, and 
one nominally for him but in fact increasingly hostile 
to him. i 

One of the first appointments made by the Council 
was that of Cadwallader D. Colden to be Mayor of 
New York. Although he was a Bucktail he was 
friendly to Clinton. He was not Clinton's first choice 
for the place, but was accepted by him when Dr. Ham- 
mond informed him that it would be impossible to 
elect Sylvanus Miller, whom the Governor preferred. 
Peter C. Van Wyck and other Clintonians were restored 
to the places which they had formerly held but from 
which they had been removed by a preceding Council. 
Josiah Ogden Hoffman, long a leading Federalist but 
now a warm supporter of Clinton, sought appointment 
as Recorder of New York, in place of Richard Riker, 
but to this Mr. Yates would not assent, and it was not 
done. A demand of Clintonians for the removal of 
William L. Mai/cy from the office of Recorder of Troy 






1818] DEVVITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 413 

was at first refused by Dr. Hammond, but after the 
April election, at which Mr. Marcy led the Bucktail 
in opposing the Clintonian candidates, the demand wa 
renewed, and the removal was made by the votes 
Dr. Hammond, Mr. Yates, and the Governor. In spite 
of the strong resistance of Dr. Hammond and the Gov- 
ernor, the other three members of the Council removed 
Dr. Cooper from the office of Secretary of State and 
appointed John Van Ness Yates in his place. 

The dissatisfaction, not to say disgust, with which 
the conduct of the Council of Appointment was 
regarded inclined an increasing number of thought! u! 
citizens to seek some means of abating an abuse which 
day by day was becoming more detrimental to good 
o-overnment. The conviction became widespread that 
the scheme of the Council, however well meant and 
however good it might be in ideal conditions, was in 
existing conditions mistaken and incompatible with 
good government, and that its abolition was demanded 
for the welfare of the State. A motion to that effect was 
made during the legislative session of 1818 by Ogden 
Edwards, an Assemblyman from New York — a son of 
Pierpont Edwards and afterward a Justice of the 
Supreme Court. He was a leader of the Bucktails and 
an opponent of Clinton. He introduced a bill calling 
for a Constitutional convention, not for a general 
revision of the Constitution but solely for considering 
and revising such parts of that instrument as related 
to the appointment of officers. The fate of this meas- 
ure obviously depended upon the Governor, whos' 1 
wishes were law to a majority of the Assembly, and 



414 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1818 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

many of his best friends strongly advised him to give 
the word for its adoption. They pointed out to him 
the increasing evils of the Council system, which indeed 
nobody realized better than himself, and the certainty 
of a change in the method of appointment before much 
more time should pass, and they urged upon him both 
the public policy and the political expediency of his 
identifying himself with the reform. But Clinton 
would not listen to them. The bill had been intro- 
duced by a Bucktail, and that was enough to damn it 
in his sight. So his followers in the Assembly voted 
against it and it was defeated. 

In the April elections of 1818 the Clintonians were 
generally successful and the Governor retained a 
strong majority of the Assembly. In New York City, 
however, the Bucktails were triumphant by a majority 
of more than a thousand, a large majority for those 
days. In the Senate, too, Clinton made marked gains. 
In the State as a whole the Clintonian votes outnum- 
bered the Bucktail by many thousands. Nevertheless 
the Bucktails, under the adroit and not over-scrupulous 
management of Van Buren, contrived to create the 
widespread impression that they were in the majority 
of the Democratic party, and that Governor Clinton 
and his followers were merely a dissenting and dis- 
loyal minority, and this impression was greatly strength- 
ened, if not justified, by the course of the Clintonians 
in the organization of the next Legislature, in Janu- 
ary, 1819. That body met on January 5, an act in 
1818 having changed the date of meeting from the third 



1819] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 415 

to the first Tuesday of January, and the Assembly was 
immediately involved in an embittered contest over the 
election of a Speaker. 

The Governor and his followers, though command- 
ing a majority of the Assembly, appear to have fixed 
upon no candidate for that place until the very last 
moment. There had been a general expectation that 
John Van Ness Yates, who had been elected from 
Albany, and who was not strongly attached to either 
faction of the party, would be elected without serious 
opposition. But the very day before the Legislature 
was to meet Clinton and his chief adviser, Ambrose 
Spencer, decided that Yates would not do. He could 
not be depended upon to stand with them against the 
Bucktails. So they dictated the election of General 
Obadiah German, who had just been reelected to the 
Assembly after an interval of many years. There is 
reason to believe that General German himself opposed, 
or at least disapproved, his candidacy. He was unpopu- 
lar. He had as a Senator in Congress opposed the 
War of 1812 and had voted against some of the meas- 
ures for its prosecution. He had signed the address 
opposing the election of Tompkins in 1813. He had, 
finally, been elected to the Assembly in April, 1818, 
by Federalist votes, in opposition to the regular Demo- 
cratic candidate. A worse choice for the Speakership, 
from the point of view of political expediency, could 
scarcely have been found. 

Clinton and Spencer, with amazing fatuity, made no 
effort to secure support for German in advance of the 
meeting of the caucus, on the evening of January 4. At 



416 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1819 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

that meeting seventy-five members were present. 
These included every Bucktail member, while a dozen 
or more Clintonians had not yet arrived at Albany. 
The Clintonian leaders had made no effort to secure a 
full attendance, apparently because they did not expect 
a contest. They had not been informed of Clinton's 
plan to spring General German upon them, but sup- 
posed that Yates would be the unopposed candidate. 
Meantime the Bucktails had been secretly but most 
efficiently preparing for the contest. They made sure 
that every one of their men was on hand, and they 
secretly pledged them all in advance to the support of 
a candidate whom Van Buren had selected. This was 
William Thompson, who had served in the Assembly 
for several years from Seneca county — a young lawyer 
of good repute and considerable ability, and of much 
personal magnetism. His candidacy was not made 
known until the assembling of the caucus. 

The Clintonians were thus doubly surprised, first at 
having the unaccaptable candidacy of General German 
forced upon them by Clinton, and second at being con- 
fronted with the formidable candidacy of Mr. Thomp- 
son. There was no time to remonstrate or argue with 
the Governor, and of course none to secure the atten- 
dance of their absent collegues. The result was that 
the Bucktails controlled the caucus, and Mr. Thomp- 
son was nominated by it for Speaker, by forty-two votes 
to thirty-three for General German. Had the absent 
Clintonians been present, German would have won. 

It was of course morally incumbent upon the Clin- 
tonians to abide by the result of the caucus, and they 




Devvitt Clinton 

Dewitt Clinton, 7th and 9th governor (1817-22), (1824-28); 
born in Little Britain, Orange county, March 2, 1769; lawyer; 
private secretary to George Clinton, his uncle, 1797; member 
state legislature 1798-1802, 1806-1811; United States senator 
1802; mayor of New York city 1803-1807, 1808-1810, 1811-1815; 
candidate for president against James Madison, 1812; governor. 
1817-22; father of the Erie canal; reelected governor, 1824; 
opened canal, October 26, 1S26; died in office February 11, 1828. 



1819] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 417 

probably would have done so had they not been com- 
manded by Clinton and Spencer to do otherwise. Dur- 
ing the night more Clintonian Assemblymen arrived, 
and orders were issued that they should disregard the 
caucus and vote for General German. Accordinglv 
that course was pursued at the assembling of the house 
on January 5. The Clintonians voted for German, the 
Bucktails for Thompson, and the Federalists for Will- 
iam A. Duer, of Albany. None of the three received a 
majority, which was necessary for election, though 
because of the arrival of the absentee Clintonians more 
votes were cast for German than for Thompson. After 
four ineffectual ballots the Assembly adjourned to the 
next day. The fifth ballot, on January 6, showed 55 
votes for German, 38 for Thompson, and 20 for Duer. 
Then Erastus Root offered a resolution that further 
balloting be dispensed with and that Mr. Thompson be 
appointed Speaker. This was rejected by a vote of 
only 41 ayes to 72 nays. A similar motion followed 
in behalf of Mr. Duer, and was lost by 3 1 to 82. Again 
such a motion was made, in behalf of General German, 
and was adopted, by the vote of 67 to 48. Nominally 
it was a victory for Clinton. In fact, it was far worse 
than a defeat. His course in causing his followers to 
repudiate the result of the regular party caucus con- 
firmed the charges of Van Buren and the Bucktails that 
he was not a loyal Democrat, and his imposition of so 
unpopular a man as General German upon the 
Assembly as Speaker alienated many of his former sup- 
porters and caused many more to question the wisdom 
of his leadership. 



418 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 8 i9 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

At the opening of the Forty-second Legislature, in 
1819, Governor Clinton delivered another long, 
scholarly address, instinct throughout with fine con- 
structive statesmanship and presenting an extraor- 
dinary contrast to the wretched factional politics in 
which he had just been engaged. He discussed the 
canal question at great length, and also devoted much 
attention to agriculture, education, hospitals and 
asylums, the militia, the protection of negroes and 
Indians in their civil rights, prison reform, and bank- 
ing and currency. His recommendations concerning 
prison reform were not altogether in the direction of 
leniency to evil-doers, and it is interesting to recall that 
a part of the response of the Legislature was to enact a 
measure providing for the flogging of criminals with 
not more than thirty-nine strokes of the lash, for solitary 
confinement on a diet of bread and water, and for plac- 
ing prisoners in stocks. 

From a political point of view the chief business of 
this session of the Legislature was the election of a 
United States Senator to succeed Rufus King, whose 
term was to expire in March. Governor Clinton 
was strongly antagonistic to Mr. King and was opposed 
to his reelection; facts which were reflected in the 
course of John A. King, the son of Senator King, who 
as a member of the Assembly voted persistently against 
General German for Speaker. This deprived Clinton 
of much of the Federalist support which he had been 
receiving, and which otherwise he might have counted 
upon in any case against the Bucktails. But Van Buren 
and his aids industriously put forward the suggestion, 



1819] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 419 

indeed the charge, that Clinton was in fact strongly in 
favor of Mr. King, and that his apparent opposition to 
him was merely assumed for the purpose of deceiving 
good Democrats. This falsehood, ingeniously and 
plausibly propagated, was widely believed, and 
deprived the Governor of much Democratic support. 
In these circumstances the Federalists resolved to vote 
for the reelection of Senator King. The Clintonians 
selected as their candidate John C. Spencer, son of 
Ambrose Spencer, a young man of splendid ability, 
who in a single term in Congress had placed himself 
among the national leaders, and who was destined to 
become a cabinet minister and a Justice of the 
Supreme Court. The Bucktails fixed upon Samuel 
Young, a competent lawyer and one of the most brilliant 
orators of his time, remembered as one of the few who 
ever held their own in controversy with the great 
Chancellor, James Kent. Seldom had three more 
noteworthy men been put forward at the same time for 
a United States Senatorship. 

The joint session for election of Senator was to occur 
on February 2. In advance of it a caucus of the Demo- 
cratic members was held, including, for the last time, 
both Clintonians and Bucktails. Van Buren meant it, 
in advance, to be the last. He had no thought of its 
performing the duty of a caucus in the selection of a 
candidate, knowing full well that the Clintonians would 
have a majority. He intended instead that it should 
foment an open breach between the two factions, and 
thus, as he hoped, "read Clinton out of the party." In 
that he succeeded. The moment the caucus was 



420 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1819 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

opened Bucktail after Bucktail took the floor with bit- 
ter aspersions upon Governor Clinton, and indirectly 
upon Obadiah German, whom Clinton had forced upon 
the Assembly as Speaker. These attacks had their 
intended effect in provoking an angry reply from Ger- 
man, who was blunt and forceful but not at all a tactful 
orator. To this, in accordance with design, Peter R. 
Livingston, a Bucktail leader, made still more acri- 
monious retort, which provoked another outburst from 
German, and the caucus was on the point of becoming 
a free-for-all fight when, on the motion of another 
Bucktail, John T. Irving, it adjourned. Thus no nom- 
ination was made, although the Clintonians were in the 
majority and could have nominated whom they pleased 
had they only kept their heads and not been led into the 
Bucktail trap of getting into a wrangle and then 
adjourning. 

That episode completed the breach between the two 
factions, and they never again united in a caucus. The 
Clintonians held another caucus a little later, and nom- 
inated John C. Spencer. But Van Buren and his fol- 
lowers insisted that as the Clintonians had formerly 
bolted the Speakership caucus, and had now adjourned 
a caucus in which they had a majority without making 
a nomination, only to hold a factional caucus later, they 
must be regarded as having withdrawn themselves from 
the Democratic party and as being no longer entitled 
to recognition as members of it. 

Another result of the episode was that New York was 
for a time permitted to have only one Senator at Wash- 
ington. The Legislature met in joint session on Febru- 



1819] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 421 

ary 2, 1919, for the election of a Senator. The Clin- 
tonians voted for John C. Spencer, and gave him 64 
votes. The Bucktails supported Samuel Young with 
57 votes. The Federalists gave Rufus King, for reelec- 
tion, 34 votes. So intense was factional feeling that it 
was generally recognized that there was no hope of a 
compromise, and in consequence the joint session 
adjourned without making an election and did not reas- 
semble. The election of a Senator was thus deferred 
until the next Legislature should meet in 1820. This 
result was charged by Senator King and his friends 
against Governor Clinton, and greatly intensified the 
aversion which the former had long felt toward the 
latter. To anticipate the progress of events it may be 
added that the sequel, a year later, was the unanimous 
reelection of Senator King. The Clintonians protested 
that they did not want him, yet they voted for him. The 
Bucktails were still more hostile to him, yet under the 
influence of a most adroit manifesto conceived by Van 
Buren and framed by William L. Marcy, they voted 
for him. It was a well-deserved tribute to a man of 
exceptional merit and ability, though it may not have 
been so intended. Each faction probably thought that 
voting for him would be the best way out of an awkward 
predicament. 

Following the complete breach between the Clin- 
tonians and Bucktails in the early part of 1819 came an 
amazing reversal of attitude on the part of the latter 
faction. Down to that time it had been inexorably 
opposed to Clinton's canal project and to his other plans 
of internal improvements. But by this time the far- 



422 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 8 i9 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

seeing leaders of the faction had seen a great light. 
They saw that in spite of their opposition Clinton's 
great plans were bound to be realized, to the immense 
advantage of the State. Their own attitude was like 
that of Dame Partington trying to sweep back the rising 
tide of the Atlantic Ocean. Accordingly, without 
explanation or apology, they suddenly reversed their 
tactics, accepted the canal and other public works, and 
vied with the Clintonians in praising and promoting 
them! The result was that during the session of 1819 
the Legislature authorized the Executive to proceed 
with the construction of the entire line of the Erie 
canal, from Lake Erie to the Hudson River. 

Governor Clinton suffered a defeat, however, in the 
election of a Canal Commissioner. Joseph Ellicott 
resigned that office in the summer of 1818, and the place 
was filled according to law by appointment by the 
Governor, the appointment to hold good only until the 
next Legislature could elect. Clinton's appointee was 
Ephraim Hart, an admirable choice, and the Governor 
confidently assumed that the Legislature would ratify 
it by permanent election. But Van Buren, realizing 
the political influence and patronage of the office, in- 
trigued in his characteristic fashion against Hart, and 
succeeded in defeating him. Henry Seymour, a man 
of high character but one of the bitterest enemies of 
Clinton in the whole State, was elected by the margin 
of a single vote. That gave the Bucktails a majority of 
the Board of Canal Commissioners and explained their 
readiness immediately thereafter to drop their opposi- 
tion to the canal project and to vote for the construction 



1819] DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 423 

of the "ditch from the Lakes to the Sea" which had 
previously been the favorite butt of their ridicule. It 
made all the difference in the world whether they or the 
Clintonians were to have control of the "patronage" of 
the work. 

During this session a highly important bill was 
enacted for the improvement of the public school sys- 
tem. Chief-Justice Thompson of the Supreme Court 
was appointed Secretary of the Navy, and Ambrose 
Spencer was promoted to succeed him. For the 
vacancy in the Associate-Justiceship thus caused the 
Federalists put forward Samuel Jones, an eminent law- 
yer who afterward became Chancellor of the State. 
Clintonians were more inclined toward John Wood- 
worth, who for several years had been Attorney-Gen- 
eral of the State, also an excellent man. Still others 
suggested the appointment of Martin Van Buren. 
Finally, it was represented that the existing court was 
greatly overworked, and that the number of Justices 
should, in the public interest, be increased; wherefore 
it was urged that all three, Jones, Woodworth, and Van 
Buren, should be appointed. To this scheme, however, 
the Governor was opposed, as were also all the Justices 
of the Supreme Court; and after protracted discussion 
the Council of Appointment finally gave the place to 
Mr. Woodworth. 

In the spring elections of 1919 the Federalists ran 
"straight tickets" wherever they felt sure of success, and 
elsewhere generally supported Clintonian candidates. 
In consequence in a number of counties, particularly in 



424 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1819 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

the Middle district, Clintonians were elected although 
the Bucktails were by far the stronger faction. The net 
result of the elections was a gain for the Bucktails, 
though the Clintonians retained a majority of the 
Assembly. 

After the election and after the adjournment of the 
Legislature, several acts of the Council of Appointment 
emphasized the increasing approachment between 
Clinton and the Federalists. One was the appoint- 
ment of a number of Justices of the Peace, some of 
whom were Clintonians and some Federalists but none 
Bucktails. Another was the removal of Richard Riker 
from the Recordership of New York and the appoint- 
ment of Peter Augustus Jay in his place. Mr. Riker had 
once been a close friend of Clinton, but had turned 
against him when Clinton refused to second his nomina- 
tion for the Supreme Court but secured instead the 
appointment of James Piatt. Mr. Jay was a son of John 
Jay, a man of the highest character and ability, whose 
appointment was generally desired by the bar and the 
leading citizens of New York irrespective of party. He 
was, of course, a Federalist. A third incident to the same 
effect was the removal of Martin Van Buren from the 
office of Attorney-General and the appointment of 
Thomas J. Oakley in his place. This was done, undis- 
guisedly, because Van Buren was the leader of the oppo- 
sition to Governor Clinton; though Oakley was prob- 
ably the better man for the place, being as good a law- 
yer as Van Buren and less likely to use his office for 
partisan ends. Van Buren, believing in the spoils sys- 



1819] 



DEWITT CLINTON, GOVERNOR 



425 



tcm, did not complain at this application of his own 
principles to his own disadvantage, but his friends in 
the press raised a great clamor over it and used the 
incident to emphasize the breach between the two 
Democratic factions. 



CHAPTER XXI 
THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 

THE legislative session of 1819 witnessed the 
beginning of the last act in a great tragedy. 
There was enacted on April 13 a bill requiring 
the State Comptroller to liquidate and settle the residue 
of the accounts of Daniel D. Tompkins with the State 
of New York. During the war, as already recorded, 
the Governor had been intimately concerned with the 
public finances of the State. He had personally 
handled millions of dollars, of both State and national 
funds, which had been entrusted to him for disburse- 
ment for war purposes, largely at his own discretion. 
Never, perhaps, had a man been thus trusted before. 
Never, we may confidently say, had anyone more 
loyally and efficiently discharged such a trust. For his 
services in the war the nation owed him a mighty debt 
of gratitude. 

Unfortunately, in one respect he was unfitted for such 
a trust, and in that respect he discharged it most unsatis- 
factorily. He was not a good business man. He was 
careless and unsystematic in the keeping of accounts. 
He entrusted his work to too many agents and did not 
always supervise their doings with sufficient care. He 
himself paid out large sums of money without proper 
vouchers. Moreover, he inextricably mixed together 
national funds and State funds and his own private 
funds. Probably, too, under the stress of war and in 

426 



1819] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 427 

his zeal to faciliate its prosecution he at times spent 
public money more freely than he should have done. 
That he ever misappropriated a single cent is unthink- 
able. There was no more honest man in the world. 
But the end of the war found, as might have been 
expected, his accounts in a hopeless muddle. 

The State Comptroller in 1816 found that there was 
apparently due to the State from Mr. Tompkins the 
sum ox- nearly $120,000. For this Mr. Tompkins could 
not account, and accordingly the Legislature in 1818 
referred the matter, for investigation, to a commission 
consisting of William A. Bayard, Cadwallader D. 
Colden, and Robert Bogardus. These gentlemen, 
eminent for character and ability, were directed to 
examine into his accounts with the State and to make a 
settlement of them on a basis not of technicalities but of 
equity. Mr. Bayard declined to serve, but Messrs. 
Colden and Bogardus did so, with painstaking dili- 
gence. 

There was no disputing that the sum in question was 
due to the State. But Mr. Tompkins did not have the 
money and could not pay it. Instead he presented to 
the Commissioners certain claims against the State 
which if allowed would more than counterbalance the 
shortage. These claims were chiefly for commissions 
and royalties on loans, premiums, etc., such as the State 
would certainly have had to pay to bankers had they, 
instead of the Governor, handled its funds and per- 
formed its fiscal transactions. There was no doubt that 
such claims were honest and valid. The Commissioners 
accordingly recommended that enough of the claims be 



428 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1819 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

allowed to counterbalance the deficit in his accounts to 
the State, and the Legislature, as stated, ordered the 
Comptroller to effect a settlement with the ex-Gov- 
ernor, then Vice-President of the United States, on that 
basis. 

But that was not to be. Mr. Tompkins logically held 
that if his claims were valid in part they were valid as 
a whole, since all were of precisely the same nature ; and 
he therefore insisted that all should be allowed, so that 
instead of merely paying his debt to the State they 
should return him a substantial balance. His indebted- 
ness to the State was approximately $120,000, and his 
claims against the State were $250,000, making a 
balance due to him of $130,000. 

This precipitated a controversy, chiefly between Mr. 
Tompkins and the State Comptroller, Archibald 
Mclntyre, in which both the letter and the spirit of the 
act of the Legislature were at issue. The claim which 
was to be paid under the act was for the premium of dif- 
ference in value between treasury notes and United 
States bonds on the one hand and currency on the 
other, on a capital sum of about a million dollars. The 
Legislature ordered that claim to be paid, on the sup- 
position — though it was not stated — that the premium 
was twelve per cent. That would have made $120,000, 
or just enough to balance the account. But the ex-Gov- 
ernor and his friends proved that the premium prevail- 
ing in 1814 was twenty-five per cent., which would 
make $250,000, entitling Mr. Tompkins to a balance of 
$130,000. 



1819] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 429 

To the latter the Comptroller demurred. He held, 
quite rightly, that the Legislature, while it intended to 
order payment of the claim, and of the claim for pre- 
mium on the whole million dollars, meant that the 
claim should be reckoned at only $120,000. To escape 
paying the larger sum, therefore, he resorted to a 
technical device which was doubtless quite foreign to 
the intention of the Legislature. That was, to grant 
the premium of twenty-five per cent, but to reckon it 
on only a part of the million dollars. He noted that 
the act ordered payment of the premium on all moneys 
which the Governor had borrowed "on his personal 
responsibility." Now, that was the case with the whole 
million dollars. But the Comptroller held that that 
meant moneys borrowed solely on his personal responsi- 
bility, with no other security. As the bulk of the mil- 
lion dollars had been borrowed on other securities as 
well as the Governor's responsibility, the Comptroller 
arbitrarily refused to sanction payment of the premium 
thereon, but on only a small part of the whole. The 
controversy was conducted with much animation 
throughout the remainder of 1819, long letters by both 
Tompkins and Mclntyre being widely published 
throughout the State, without an agreement being 
reached. It should be added that the Comptroller was 
a man of great ability, who was held deservedly in the 
highest esteem by the people of the State, and there was 
no suspicion of any but entirely upright motives on his 
part, just as there was no suspicion of anything but 
absolute honesty in Mr. Tompkins's handling of public 
funds. 



430 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Matters were in this muddle when the Forty-third 
Legislature assembled on January 4, 1820. John C. 
Spencer, of Ontario county, was elected Speaker of the 
Assembly by sixty-four votes, cast by Clintonians and 
Federalists, against fifty for Peter Sharpe, cast by 
Bucktails, and seven scattering votes. Governor Clin- 
ton delivered another elaborate and statesmanlike 
address, devoted largely to the subjects of canals and 
other public works, prisons, schools, and the pressing 
need of a water supply for the city of New York. He 
also strongly urged the need of revision of the Consti- 
tution, especially criticising the Council of Appoint- 
ment and advising its abolition. To that end he recom- 
mended the calling of a Constitutional convention. As 
a result of his urging, a committee of the Assembly pre- 
sently reported in favor of calling a convention, not to 
prepare a new Constitution or generally to revise the 
existing one, but specifically to revise those parts relat- 
ing to the Council of Appointment and the Council of 
Revision, and to the qualifications of voters, and such 
other parts as the Legislature might designate. A bill 
providing for the calling of such a convention was 
drafted and introduced, but failed of passage. 

The Governor in his address also referred to the 
Missouri Compromise, and recommended that the 
Legislature should make some declaration on the sub- 
ject of slavery. In consequence the Legislature 
adopted a concurrent resolution instructing the United 
States Senators from New York and requesting the 
Representatives to vote for the admission of no new 



1820] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 431 

State to the Union without a prohibition of slavery as 
an indispensable condition of such admission. 

A new Council of Appointment was elected by the 
Assembly on February 4, consisting of three Clinton- 
ians, John Lounsbury, Levi Adams, and Ephraim Hart, 
and one Bucktail, John D. Ditmas. Apart from a few 
Sheriffs and other minor officers, no political removals 
or appointments were made; probably for the reason, 
chiefly, that all the places were already filled by Clin- 
tonians and Federalists. 

Early in the session the attention of the Assembly was 
called by Erastus Root to a newspaper report that Wil- 
liam W. Van Ness, a Justice of the Supreme Court, 
had been implicated in some proceedings of dubious 
propriety in connection with the granting of a charter 
to the Bank of America, and on his motion a committee 
was appointed to investigate the matter and to deter- 
mine whether there was adequate ground for impeach- 
ment proceedings. Unfortunately much partisan ani- 
mosity was injected into the case, and the ultimate dis- 
position of it was made on party lines, the Clintonians 
and Federalists voting against and the Bucktails voting 
for impeachment. Justice Van Ness was thus upheld 
and exempted from impeachment proceedings, and he 
doubtless had the comfort of a conscience free from 
reproach. Yet the imputation which had been cast 
upon him was so deeply taken to heart that his health 
thereafter steadily and hopelessly failed. 

Meantime a still greater personal and political con- 
flict was brewing. The Bucktails on January 16 held 
a caucus and unanimously nominated ex-Governor 



432 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Tompkins for the Governorship, believing that with 
him they could defeat Clinton, who was a candidate for 
reelection. They were of course not unmindful of the 
financial complications in which he was involved, and 
that technically he was a defaulter. But they rightly 
believed his integrity to be above question, and they had 
confidence to believe that the voters of the State would 
take that view. He had not lost the personal charm 
which in former years had given him an unrivalled 
popularity; his record as a War Governor had given 
him national prominence; he had been chosen Vice- 
President of the United States. As a candidate in for- 
mer elections he had shown extraordinary strength. 
Moreover, he was the representative of genuine Demo- 
cracy unmixed with mere factionalism, while Clinton 
had practically separated himself from the Democratic 
party to lead a coalition party of his own, consisting of 
Clintonian Democrats and Federalists. It was shrewdly 
reckoned that the nomination would rally many Demo- 
crats who were tired of factional feuds and would, if 
such a consummation were possible, compass the 
defeat of the man who was regarded as being — and in 
fact was — the foremost factionist of his time. 

This nomination made it inevitable that the matter of 
Mr. Tompkins's accounts should be taken up again and 
pressed to some determination. Accordingly, early in 
the session of the Legislature the Comptroller presented 
a detailed report of what he had done, or had tried to 
do, in pursuance of the act of the preceding Legislature. 
He explained the radical difference of opinion between 




Peter B. Porter 

Peter B. Porter; born in Salisbury, Conn., August 14, 1773; 
lawyer; member of state assembly, 1802; removed from Can- 
andaigua, Ontario county, to Buffalo in fall of 1802; member 
of congress, 1809-13; served in the war of 1812; again elected 
to congress and served from March 4, 1815 to January 23, 
1816 when he resigned to become secretary of state of New 
York; appointed by President John Quincy Adams as secretary 
of war and served from June 21, 1828 to March 9, 1829; died 
at Niagara Falls, N. Y., March 10, 1844. 







Stephen Van Rensselaer 

Stephen Van Rensselaer; born in New York City, November 
1 1765- member of assembly, 1789-91 and 1808-10; state 
senate 1791-96; lieutenant governor, 1795; major general ol 
volunteers in the war of 1812; member of canal commission 
18.6-39 and served 14 years as its president; reelected to 
assembly, 1818; member state constitutional convention 1821 
member" of congress, 1822-29; died in Albany, N. \ .. Januarj 
26, 1839. 



1820] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 433 

himself and the former Governor concerning the inter- 
pretation of the act, and set forth in full the grounds 
upon which his own opinion was based. This report 
was referred to a special committee of the Assembly, 
of which Jedediah Miller, of Schoharie, was the chair- 
man, and of which, of course, a majority were Clinton- 
ians. The committee spent much time in consideration 
of the case, not merely discussing Mr. Mclntyre's 
report but also making further investigations into the 
matter and securing the opinions of various jurists con- 
cerning its merits. Finally, on March 16, it made an 
elaborate report upon the case and recommended that 
it be resolved, as the sense of the house, that the course 
pursued by the Comptroller had been that of "a firm, 
faithful, and intelligent public officer 1 ' and that it met 
with "the full approbation" of the Assembly. 

A long debate ensued, of more than ordinary bril- 
liancy and power on both sides. The Assembly at that 
time contained an unusually large proportion of men 
of high intellectual and oratorical ability, and the argu- 
ments and appeals made by such men as John C. 
Spencer, Thomas J. Oakley, and Elisha Williams on the 
side of the Comptroller, and Erastus Root, Peter 
Sharpe, and John T. Irving for ex-Governor Tomp- 
kins,would have done credit to any legislative assembly 
in the world. That the resolution would be favorably 
regarded by the majority of the Assembly was, however, 
a foregone conclusion, since there was a Clintonian 
majority in that house and the question was bound to 
be decided on political rather than juridical grounds. 



434 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The resolution was, of course, a hostile reflection upon 
the ex-Governor, and was thus regarded and bitterly 
resented by his friends. 

Meantime another important move in the same cam- 
paign, but in the other direction, was begun in the 
Senate. The lead was there taken by Martin Van 
Buren, who on January 12 offered a resolution, which 
was adopted, calling upon the Comptroller for a full 
report upon the matter. Mr. Mclntyre responded with 
an account of the controversy between himself and Mr. 
Tompkins, and with a detailed statement of the reasons 
for his refusal to allow all of the ex-Governor's claims. 
The matter was then referred to a special committee, of 
which Van Buren was the chairman, which considered 
it for some time and then on March 9 made a remark- 
able report, in which Van Buren with characteristic 
"foxiness" strove to vindicate Mr. Tompkins — who 
really needed no vindication — and at the same time to 
avoid any heavy draft upon the State treasury. The 
report was to the effect that the Comptroller should 
have allowed to Mr. Tompkins a premium of twelve 
and a half per cent, upon the whole capital sum of 
$1,050,000. That would have amounted to $131,250. 
From this there should have been deducted the amount 
due from Mr. Tompkins to the State, $1 19,379.50, leav- 
ing a balance of $11,870.50, which should have been 
paid to Mr. Tompkins in final settlement of the whole 
account. Van Buren accordingly introduced a bill 
directing that the sum named should be paid to the 
former Governor in consideration of his thereupon 
withdrawing all further claims upon the State. 



1820] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 435 

Against this bill the Clintonians raged. A number 
of their Senators spoke against it, and took occasion in 
their speeches to reflect very unfavorably upon the 
former Governor. They also dwelt upon the fact, 
which was not denied by the friends of Mr. Tompkins, 
that the claims which he had made against the State 
of New York should have been made, if valid, against 
the United States government, since it was to it that 
his services had been rendered. Recognizing the force 
of this, Van Buren inserted a clause in the bill provid- 
ing that the full amount allowed to Mr. Tompkins 
should be charged by the State of New York against the 
Federal government. The only speech in favor of the 
bill was made by Van Buren himself. It occupied in 
delivery the greater part of two days, and was regarded 
as one of the most ingenious and persuasive ever made 
by him. The bill was then passed by the Senate by a 
large majority, and was sent to the Assembly. 

There it was referred to a special committee of which 
Thomas J. Oakley was chairman, and on April 6 was 
unfavorably reported on. The report held that the 
action of the Comptroller had been entirely correct, 
and that the bill already enacted, a year before, under 
which the Comptroller had acted, should be regarded 
as a finality; and it recommended that the Senate bill 
should be made to provide simply that if Mr. Tomp- 
kins did not pay to the State the sum due to it on or 
before August 1, 1820, the Comptroller should begin 
action against him to compel payment, in which suit, 
however, he should be permitted to present his claims 
for a premium as an offset. This report was favorably 



436 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

acted upon by the Assembly, and the Senate bill was 
thus amended. But the Senate declined to concur in 
the amendment, and so neither the original Senate bill 
nor the Assembly substitute was ever enacted. Indeed, 
nothing more was done about the matter at that time. 
The election was at hand, and all possible political 
capital, both for and against Mr. Tompkins, but 
chiefly against him, had been made out of the wretched 
wrangle. More than six months later, after the nation 
had reelected him Vice-President, on November 10, 
1820, a bill was introduced into the State Senate 
releasing him from all claims by the State in considera- 
tion of his releasing the State from all his claims against 
it, and thus settling the matter. This bill was hastily 
enacted, with practically no opposition, all men being 
eager, for decency's sake, to bury the scandal out of 
sight. Years afterward, after Tompkins's death, the 
State government discovered and acknowledged that 
it had rightfully owed him more than ninety thousand 
dollars over and above its claim against him. 

Mr. Tompkins had been nominated for Governor by 
a caucus of the anti-Clintonian members of the Legis- 
lature, according to usage. No fewer than sixty-four 
members were present at the caucus. Benjamin 
Mooers, of Plattsburgh, a Senator, was nominated for 
Lieutenant-Governor. He had, by the way, been 
elected to the Senate at the preceding election as a 
Clintonian. The supporters of Clinton, though in the 
majority in the Assembly, were in a minority in the 
Legislature as a whole. Not wishing to advertise this 
fact by holding a caucus, therefore, they pretended to 



1820] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 437 

disapprove that method of making nominations, and 
instead called a public meeting of the citizens of 
Albany, at which Governor Clinton was formally 
renominated, with John Tayler for Lieutenant- 
Governor. 

On the eve of the election fifty of the foremost Fed- 
eralists of the State, comprising an impressive propor- 
tion of men of wealth, learning, and generally high 
standing, put forth an address to the people of the 
State urging the election of Mr. Tompkins and 
especially opposing the reelection of DeWitt Clinton, 
not because of any disapproval of his character, or of 
the measures with which he was identified, but simply 
because he was trying to form a personal party and 
thus to exalt a certain form of autocracy above democ- 
racy. The address also declared that the Federalist 
party, to which they had belonged, had been dissolved 
and had ceased to exist. There is no doubt that this 
manifesto had considerable influence with the voters 
of the State. 

The campaign was bitterly contested down to the 
very moment of the closing of the polls, and the sole 
issue was whether DeWitt Clinton should continue to 
direct the State government. There was no question 
of policy, for Van Buren was as much committed to the 
completion of the canal as Clinton himself. But 
Clinton's friends contended that, having conceived and 
begun the great work, he should be permitted to com- 
plete it; while his foes insisted that it could be finished 
by someone else just as well, while in all other respects 
the State would be better off without Clinton, who was 



438 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

a disturbing element. Van Buren expected Tompkins 
to be elected, to the very last. On the other hand, 
Clinton was equally confident of winning. The result 
was in fact exceptionally close. Clinton was success- 
ful by the small majority of 1,450, getting 47,444 votes 
to Tompkins's 45,990. But in the Legislature the 
Bucktails were overwhelmingly victorious. They 
increased their majority in the Senate, and transformed 
a Clintonian majority in the Assembly to a Bucktail 
majority of eighteen. 

To Mr. Tompkins the result was a tragedy. He was 
unable to rid himself of the notion — though it was 
altogether erroneous — that the controversy over his 
accounts had turned the people against him, and that 
they widely regarded him as a defaulter and as a false 
claimant. Upon this he brooded, to the verge of 
melancholia. His reelection to the Vice-Presidency, 
and the settlement of his accounts by the Legislature, as 
already related, did not console him. In 1821 he was 
elected a delegate to the New York State Constitutional 
convention, and that convention made him its presi- 
dent, a place which he filled with fine dignity, urbanity, 
and ability. But the iron had entered his soul. His 
once sunny and lovable disposition became soured and 
irritable. His superb physical frame drooped and 
shrank. He indulged too much in strong drink. And 
at the age of fifty-one, soon after completing his second 
term as Vice-President, he died, leaving the memory 
of one, of the most engaging and attractive figures that 
have ever adorned the public life of the State of New 



1820] THE PASSING OF TOMPKINS 439 

York, or, indeed, of the United States, untimely driven 
from the scene in circumstances reflecting discredit and 
reproach upon almost everybody concerned in them 
excepting himself. 



CHAPTER XXII 
BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 

i 6 "I ~) LAYING politics" has unfortunately too often 
r* been a favorite occupation of the Legislature 
A of the State of New York. We have had occa- 
sion hitherto to record many examples of it, sometimes 
of a kind most discreditable, and costly to the welfare 
of the commonwealth. It is to be doubted whether 
any dozen of the first forty-two Legislatures put together 
indulged in that reprehensible practice so much as the 
one Legislature, the Forty-third, whose doings we have 
just briefly recorded. Since its time its political activi- 
ties and antics have been immeasurably surpassed, as 
we shall have occasion to see. And indeed it may be 
that its partisan record was surpassed by that of its 
immediate successor, the Forty-fourth. There can be 
little question that these two bodies were far above 
the average in the ability of their members. But high 
intellectual ability and the purest personal character 
seemed to afford no bar against the intensest partisan- 
ship nor any deterrent upon its practice. 

The Forty-third Legislature, then, adjourned on 
April 14, 1820, after providing for the assembling of its 
successor in special session for the choice of Presidential 
Electors. The special session began on November 7, 
1820, when Peter Sharpe, a Bucktail, of New York,' 
was elected Speaker of the Assembly by 69 votes against 
52 for John C. Spencer, the Clintonian candidate. 

440 



1820] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 441 

Although the special purpose of the session was the 
choice of Presidential Electors, the Legislature 
addressed itself to much other important business, and 
the Governor's message, or speech, was, like its prede- 
cessors, long, elaborate, and filled with recommenda- 
tions of constructive statesmanship. 

One of his recommendations was for the enactment of 
a law providing for the choice of Presidential Electors 
by the people at a general election and on a general 
State ticket; this arrangement to remain in force until 
the United States Constitution should be so amended — 
as he expected it to be — as to require Electors to be 
chosen by the people, by districts, in all States. He 
also made a vigorous protest against the interference of 
Federal officers in State politics or State elections. 
This evil certainly did exist, to an extent which war- 
ranted him in apprehending that, if not checked, it 
would in time undermine and destroy the fabric of free 
government. He urged that the State should resolutely 
resist this malign tendency, and expressed a hope that 
Congress would realize that it was its duty to take 
remedial action concerning it. 

His most important recommendation, however, was 
that for the holding of a Constitutional convention. 
It is not improbable that he was at least in part moved 
to this by the course of his political adversaries. In 
the preceding August the Bucktails had held a large 
meeting at Tammany Hall, in New York, at which a 
resolution was adopted declaring that a convention 
ought to be held, with unlimited powers to revise the 
Constitution of the State. There was no doubt that the 



442 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

sentiment of the people of all parties was turning in that 
direction, and, intolerant and contemptuous as he often 
was of the advice and the example of others, Clinton 
probably thought that it was desirable to identify him- 
self with the movement as a leader in it rather than 
let others have all that distinction and himself be ulti- 
mately forced into it as a follower. His recommenda- 
tion concerning a convention was notably judicious and 
statesmanlike — to the effect that the Legislature should 
simply submit to the people the question whether such 
a convention should be called, to be decided by a major- 
ity of the popular vote, and that the result of the conven- 
tion should be submitted to the people, to be approved 
or rejected by popular vote before becoming effective. 
He particularly emphasized the need of abolition of 
the Council of Appointment, declaring that "If the 
ingenuity of man had been exercised to organize the 
appointing power in such a way as to produce continual 
intrigue and commotion in this State, none could have 
been devised with more effect than the present arrange- 
ment." Reviewing the record of that Council, it is not 
easy to convict Clinton of extravagance in this judg- 
ment, though it must not be forgotten that nobody sur- 
passed him in misuse of the Council. 

The Legislature followed his recommendation so 
far as to pass a bill providing for a Constitutional con- 
vention. But, its majority being hostile to him, it 
foolishly ignored his wise recommendation that the 
question be referred to the people, but directly ordered 
the calling of a convention. The result was that the 
Council of Revision vetoed it, the illustrious Chancellor 



1820] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 443 

Kent himself writing the decision, and vetoed it on that 
very ground, that it ordered the holding of a convention 
instead of letting the people decide whether to do so 
or not. Had the bill been framed in accordance with 
Clinton's suggestion it would have been approved and 
would have become law. 

The very day after the Governor in his message 
delivered that scathing condemnation of the Council of 
Appointment the Assembly elected a new Council, and 
by a strict party vote elected four anti-Clintonian 
Senators: Walter Bowne, of the Southern district; 
John T. Moore, of the Middle; Roger Skinner, of the 
Eastern; and David E. Evans, of the Western. The 
election of Mr. Skinner was widely regarded as little 
short of scandalous. He had for nearly a year been 
holding office as United States Judge for the Northern 
district of New York. That he should be permitted 
to serve at the same time as a State Senator was bad 
enough. It was contrary to a former resolution of the 
Senate. But that he should also be elected a member 
of the Council of Appointment was revolting to a large 
part of his own political party. It so incensed the 
State that when the Constitutional convention met the 
next year, one of the very first things proposed and 
agreed upon was a section forbidding such holding of 
Federal and State offices at the same time. This new 
Council did not actually assume office and discharge 
any of its functions until the regular session of the 
Legislature, in January, 1821. 

The day after the election of the Council the Legis- 
lature chose Presidential Electors. It was a foregone 



444 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1820 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

conclusion, of course, that Monroe and Tompkins were 
to be reelected. Yet Bucktails and Clintonians voted 
for two separate sets of candidates, the former winning 
by a strict party vote. 

The session was marked by the introduction by 
Erastus Root of a resolution declaring that human 
slavery could not exist in the State of New York. In a 
speech of great power he argued that the Declaration 
of Independence was the supreme law of the United 
States, that it declared that all men were created equal, 
and that therefore it was impossible that any person 
should be born a slave. He was, however, unable to 
get the Legislature to vote upon the measure. 

One of the most violent controversies of the session 
was that over the Governor's protest against the inter- 
ference of Federal office-holders in New York elections. 
The State Senate passed a resolution asking him to lay 
before it such information as he possessed relative to the 
formation of such officers in "an organized and dis- 
ciplined corps," the intimation being that Clinton had 
declared them to be thus organized. In fact he had 
not, but had merely predicted what might be expected 
in case they should thus become organized. But Clin- 
ton made no attempt at a correction, but contented 
himself with answering that he would "in due time" 
make a communication on the subject which he hoped 
would be satisfactory to the Senate, a tone of fine irony 
being manifest in his reply. This stung the Senate to 
the quick, and it retorted by adopting a resolution set- 
ting forth that the Governor had not furnished the 
Senate with any proof of the charges which he had 



1820-1] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 445 

made against the Federal government, that it was 
highly improper to make such charges without having 
in his possession ample testimony to support them, and 
that therefore the Senate had the strictest confidence 
in the patriotism and integrity of the national govern- 
ment and would not change its opinion save upon full 
and satisfactory testimony. This resolution was 
adopted by a strict party vote. On receiving the next 
day an official copy of it, Clinton wrote to the Senate 
declaring that he would fully notice the whole matter 
at the next session of the Legislature, and expressing 
sincere regret that the Senate should, in so unprece- 
dented a manner, have lost sight of the respect due to 
itself and of the courtesy due to a coordinate branch of 
the government. This dignified rebuke drove the anti- 
Clintonian Senators so nearly mad that they voted to 
return it to the Governor, and the next moment 
adjourned until January, 1821. 

The Legislature adjourned on November 21, 1820, 
and reassembled for its regular session on January 9, 
1821. A week later the Governor sent in to the 
Assembly a voluminous message on the subject of 
Federal office-holders and their interference in New 
York politics. Because it was so voluminous and was 
accompanied with so many letters, affidavits, and other 
documents, the Governor sent it to the Assembly in a 
large green bag, such as lawyers used for carrying 
papers, from which circumstance it was called the 
"Green Bag Message." In the message and documents 
it was shown that the naval storeskeeper in Brooklyn 
and various other officials had been very active and 



446 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1821 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

energetic against the Clintonian candidates for the 
Legislature at the last election, and that others else- 
where in the State had likewise been. Among the 
accompanying documents was a letter which Martin 
Van Buren had written to Henry Meigs, a Represen- 
tative in Congress from New York City, urging the 
removal of certain postmasters who were friends of 
Clinton and the appointment of anti-Clintonians in 
their places. He made no charges against the men, 
save a vague complaint that it seemed impossible to 
get Bucktail newspapers distributed through the mails. 
The men were to be removed solely for political pur- 
poses. Two of the men whose removal had thus been 
suggested by Van Buren were promptly dismissed from 
their places; but there is no proof that there was any 
consequent improvement in the mail service. The 
"Green Bag Message" was referred to a joint com- 
mittee of the two houses, which on March 15 made a 
violently partisan report, savagely abusing the Gover- 
nor and denying the truth of his allegations. 

In defiance of this exposure of Van Buren's partisan- 
ship, the Bucktails made him their candidate for the 
United States Senatorship, to succeed Nathan Sanford, 
whose term was about to expire. Now, Sanford was a 
Tammany Hall man and was intensely hostile to Clin- 
ton. Yet in hope of defeating Van Buren the Gover- 
nor directed every one of his followers in the Legis- 
lature to vote for Sanford's reelection. His thought 
was that a number of the Bucktails might be induced 
to vote for Sanford. But it was in vain. All the 
Bucktails voted for Van Buren and he was elected by 



1821] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 447 

a strict party vote. At this time Clinton was furious 
against Van Buren, calling him in one of his letters an 
"arch-scoundrel," and again a "corrupt scoundrel." 

The most important business of the session was the 
passing of another bill for a Constitutional convention. 
The committee to which the veto of the former bill had 
been submitted made a long report, bitterly denouncing 
the Council of Revision for its action. Then John C. 
Spencer proposed to introduce a bill providing that at 
the coming general election in April the people should 
vote whether there should be a convention; that if they 
ordered it to be held the Governor should announce 
the fact and the election should be held in June; that 
the delegates should be chosen by the counties in pro- 
portion to their population; and that all amendments 
adopted by the convention should be submitted to the 
people for ratification or rejection, each amendment 
being separately considered and acted upon. This 
admirable plan, which was in accord with the Gover- 
nor's recommendation and which was free from the 
objectionable features which the Council of Revision 
had found in the other bill, was made a victim of parti- 
san animosity. Permission to introduce the measure 
was refused to Mr. Spencer, on the technical ground 
that the former bill was still before the house and must 
first be disposed of. 

A long and acrimonious debate on that former bill 
ensued, in which many days of the session were wasted. 
Finally a vote was taken upon it, and it was lost, fail- 
ing to receive the needed two-thirds majority. Then, 
instead of welcoming Mr. Spencer's proposal, the 



448 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1821 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Bucktail majority directed the committee to which the 
veto of the bill had been referred to draft and present 
a new bill. It did so, but the new bill was so much like 
the old that it was practically certain that the Council 
of Revision would veto it for the same reasons as 
before. Then an amendment was proposed, avoiding 
a veto by submitting to the people the question whether 
the convention should be held. Over this a long debate 
occurred, after which it was adopted by the votes of the 
Clintonians and some Bucktails, though practically all 
of the Bucktail leaders, with the exception of Erastus 
Root, voted against it. The bill as thus amended was 
then passed by the Legislature and was approved by 
the Council of Revision. 

At this session the Legislature added another mem- 
ber to the Board of Canal Commissioners, selecting for 
the place William C. Bouck, who was then a Senator 
from Schoharie county, a member of the Bucktail party, 
and who was destined to play thereafter an important 
part in the political history of the State. The session 
was prolonged until April 3, when it adjourned with- 
out day. 

Meantime the moribund Council of Appointment, 
dominated by Roger Skinner, a bitter political and per- 
sonal foe of the Governor, and popularly known as 
"Skinner's Council," diligently applied the principle 
that "to the victors belong the spoils." After dismiss- 
ing the Sheriffs of eleven counties and appointing Buck- 
tail partisans in their places, it removed Archibald 
Mclntyre from the office of State Comptroller. He 
had held the place for many years under a succession 




Nathan Sanford 

Nathan Sanford; born in Bridgehamton, L. I., November 
5, 1777; lawyer; United States commissioner in bankruptcy, 
1802; United States attorney for New York, 1803-15; member 
state legislature, 1808-9, 1811; member state senate, IS J 2-1 5 ; 
United States senator, 1815-21; delegate to state constitutional 
convention, 1821; chancellor of New York, 1823-25; again 
elected to United States senate, serving from 1826-31; died at 
Flushing, N. Y., October 17, 1838. 



1821] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 449 

of Councils of varying political complexions, and had 
come to be regarded as a non-political official who, 
because of the value of his experience, should be per- 
manently retained. His capacity and character were 
above suspicion. But he had not stood with the Buck- 
tails in support of Daniel D. Tompkins against DeWitt 
Clinton, and therefore he had to go. His successor, 
John Savage, was an excellent man, who had not 
sought the place and who probably would not have 
wished the change to be made. 

The same day the Council removed Thomas J. 
Oakley from the office of Attorney-General, of course 
because of his friendship for Clinton. In his place it 
appointed Samuel A. Talcott, a young lawyer of Utica, 
until then not conspicuous in State affairs. He had 
been a Federalist, but refused to go with the bulk of that 
party in supporting Clinton and was therefore 
welcomed into the ranks of the Bucktails. He was a 
close friend of Martin Van Buren, and was the latter's 
personal choice for the place. Of his excellent char- 
acter and high professional abilities there was no ques- 
tion. Cadwallader D. Colden was removed from the 
Mayoralty of New York City and was replaced with 
Stephen Allen, and Peter A. Jay was removed from 
the Recordership to make room for Richard Riker. 

The Council, as if determined to make as bad a 
record as possible, then made a "clean sweep" of every 
Sheriff, Surrogate, County Clerk, County Judge, and 
Justice of the Peace in the State who was so much as 
suspected of favoring Governor Clinton. It even 
invaded the military establishment and dismissed, for 



450 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 8 2l 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

purely political reasons, General Anthony Lamb, the 
Commissary-General, and General Solomon Van Ren- 
sselaer, the Adjutant-General. To the former place 
Alexander M. Muir, a loyal Bucktail, was appointed. 
The removal of General Van Rensselaer created a 
sensation and provoked widespread protests, because of 
his services in the late war and his long connection 
with the militia. He was replaced by the Council with 
William L. Marcy, who thus took another step toward 
the national distinction which he ultimately won. 

Worst of all the Council's acts, however, was the dis- 
missal of Gideon Hawley from the office of Superin- 
tendent of Schools. He was a man of the highest 
character and ability, of signal devotion to the cause of 
popular education, who had during a number of years 
rendered invaluable services to the State for a meager 
recompense. More than any other man he is entitled 
to grateful remembrance as the founder of the New 
York public school system. Moreover, he had scru- 
pulously refrained from political activities of any kind. 
Yet without the pretense of dissatisfaction with him he 
was turned out of office and was replaced by one Wel- 
come Esleeck, a third-rate attorney with no fitness 
whatever for the place. The scandal was so flagrant 
that the Bucktails in the Legislature themselves revolted 
against it. On the initiative of Erastus Root a bill was 
passed by acclamation legislating the egregious Esleeck 
out of office by providing that thenceforth the Secretary 
of State should ex-officio be Superintendent of Schools. 
The Secretary of State at that time was John Van Ness 
Yates, who was at least a man of high attainments, 



1821] BUCKTAILS AGAINST CLINTON 451 

though without special fitness for educational work. 
It was a good thing to exchange him for Esleeck, 
though it was of course a bad thing to make a distinc- 
tively political officer and politician head of a great 
department from which party politics should always 
be scrupulously excluded. 

Following these things came the April elections. 
Archibald Mclntyre after his removal from the Comp- 
trollership was nominated for Senator in the Middle 
district, for the purpose of giving him a popular vindi- 
cation. Although the district at the preceding election 
had given a Bucktail majority of about 800, he was 
elected by about 400, a result which added to the 
popular condemnation of the Council of Appointment. 
Elsewhere the Bucktails were generally successful in 
at least holding their ground. They elected 70 mem- 
bers of the Assembly, to the Clintonians' 52. Of 
the eight Senators elected five were Clintonians and 
three Bucktails. The Bucktails would probably have 
elected five to the Clintonians' three had it not been for 
the candidacy of Mr. Mclntyre, which resulted in his 
election and also that of his Clintonian colleague, 
Abraham Hasbrouck, in the Middle district. 

The most notable feature of the election was, how- 
ever, the overwhelming majority in favor of a Consti- 
tutional convention. There had for years been a 
growing feeling among thoughtful men that the Con- 
stitution needed revision, particularly in respect to the 
appointing power. To that sentiment "Skinner's 
Council" during the three months immediately pre- 
ceding the election gave a powerful impetus. Indeed, 



+52 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [182 i 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

it would be difficult to conceive anything that could 
more strongly have influenced the people of the State 
to vote for constitutional revision — which was sure, 
first and foremost, to wipe that Council out of existence 
— than such performances as the arbitrarry removal of 
such men as Messrs. Mclntyre, Van Rensselaer, and 
Hawley. True, the people were not yet, and would 
not be for many years, ready to make an end of the 
spoils system. But at least they purposed to have that 
system administered in some more responsible fashion 
than by that utterly discredited Council. So they polled 
a majority of 74,445 votes in favor of a Constitutional 
convention with plenary powers. 



CHAPTER XXIII 
A NEW CONSTITUTION 

THE Legislature in March, 1821, submitted to the 
people the question of a Constitutional conven- 
tion. The people in April following voted for 
such a convention, with plenary power, by 109,000 to 
35,000. On the third Tuesday of June a special elec- 
tion was held for Delegates to the convention, these 
being chosen on county tickets. In the greater part of 
the State party lines were sharply drawn, and the Buck- 
tails were generally successful. There were some 
exceptions, however, notably in Oneida county, where 
a mixed delegation of Bucktails, Clintonians, and Fed- 
eralists was elected. The convention met at Albany on 
August 28, 1821, and was overwhelmingly Bucktail in 
complexion, as was indicated by the vote of 94 to 16 by 
which Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen to be its 
chairman. 

It was for ability and character one of the most note- 
worthy bodies that ever assembled in the State. Among 
its members were Daniel D. Tompkins, Vice-President 
of the United States; Rufus King and Martin Van 
Buren, United States Senators; James Kent, Chancellor 
of the State; Erastus Root, Abraham Van Vechten, 
Ambrose Spencer, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Nathan 
Sanford, Peter Augustus Jay, William W. Van Ness, 
Peter Sharpe, Jacob Radcliffe, Jonas Piatt, Elisha 

453 



454 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1821 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Williams, James Tallmadge, Peter R. Livingston, 
Samuel Young. Ezekiel Bacon, Nathan Williams, 
John Duer, Samuel Nelson, Jacob Sutherland, and 
other men of genuine "light and leading." 

It was from the outset the purpose of the convention 
to make a radical revision of the Constitution, amount- 
ing to a practically new instrument. The work was 
apportioned among ten committees, respectively on the 
Legislative department, the Executive department, 
the Judiciary department, the Council of Revision, the 
Council of Appointment, the right of suffrage, the 
rights and privileges of citizens, the commencement of 
the legislative year, the mode of making future revi- 
sions, and all other topics in the Constitution not already 
mentioned. 

The first important action taken by the convention 
for actual revision of the Constitution was the abolition 
of the Council of Revision and the vesting of the veto 
power in the Governor alone. This was not done, how- 
ever, without much debate, not so much over the aboli- 
tion of the Council as over the extent of the Governor's 
veto power. Peter R. Livingston, Erastus Root, and 
others urged that the Legislature should be empowered 
to pass a bill over a veto by a simple majority vote. It 
was. they argued, undemocratic to permit one man to 
overrule the majority of both houses of the Legislature; 
particularly since he could do so not alone because he 
considered a bill unconstitutional, but also could veto 
a bill simply on grounds of expediency, or because he 
personally did not like it. These arguments did not 



1821] A NEW CONSTITUTION 455 

prevail, and the Governor was invested with the veto 
power, to be overriden only by a two-thirds vote of 
both houses of the Legislature. 

The next considerable debate was over the length of 
the Governor's term. Earnest arguments were made 
for a three years' term, and also for one of only a single 
year, but finally a term of two years was decided upon 
by the narrow margin of 61 votes to 59. 

The committee on the Legislative department 
recommended that the State be divided into eight 
Senatorial districts, from each of which four Senators 
should be elected; that no member of either house 
should during the term for which he was elected be 
eligible to any appointive office; that no person holding 
any office, civil or military, under the United States 
government, should be eligible to the Legislature; that 
all persons holding constitutional offices "on good 
behavior" should be removable only by a two-thirds 
vote of both houses; and that the capital of the com- 
mon school fund should always remain inviolate. All 
these recommendations were substantially adopted. 

Over the question of the elective franchise a great 
debate arose. The committee recommended practical 
abolition of the property qualification by extending the 
franchise to all white men who had lived in the State 
six months, and who within the year had paid taxes, or 
worked on the highways, or been enrolled in the militia. 
Peter A. Jay, Abraham Van Vechten, and others strove 
to have the word "white" omitted, so as to enfranchise 
negroes, but were opposed by Erastus Root, Samuel 
Young, Ambrose Spencer, and many more. Mr. Van 



456 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1821 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Buren did not speak on it, but voted for the motion 
made by Mr. Jay for the striking out of the word 
"white," and so did Mr. Tompkins, and the motion was 
adopted by a vote of 63 to 59. Later this action was 
reversed, and the colored citizens of the State were left 
without the right to vote. 

Chancellor Kent made a noteworthy speech urging 
the retention of the property qualification of at least 
$250 freehold for all voters for State Senators, as pro- 
posed by Ambrose Spencer, in which he said: 

"The growth of the city of New York is enough to 
startle and awaken those who are pursuing the ignis 
fatuus of universal suffrage. In 1773 it had 21,000 
souls; in 1801 it had 60,000; in 1806 it had 76,000; in 
1820 it had 123,000. It is rapidly swelling into the 
unwieldly population, and with the burdensome pau- 
perism, of a European metropolis. New York is 
destined to become the future London of America; and 
in less than a century that city, with the operation of 
universal suffrage and under skillful direction, will 
govern the State." 

The opposite side was taken strongly by Erastus Root 
and Martin Van Buren, and finally prevailed by an 
overwhelming majority. 

One of the most troublesome questions before the 
convention was that of the reform of the judicial sys- 
tem, discussion of it being protracted and acrimonious, 
largely because of the fact that thitherto the Chancellor 
and Justices had often been active partisan politicians. 
Erastus Root and others wished to legislate Chancellor 
Kent and the five Supreme Court Justices out of official 



1821] A NEW CONSTITUTION 457 

existence; others wished to retain the Chancellor but 
get rid of the Justices; and still others wished to retain 
the old system practically unchanged. Finally, by the 
narrow majority of 62 to 53 it was voted to recast the 
judicial system by creating a new Supreme Court con- 
sisting of a Chief-Justice and two Associate-Justices, 
and by dividing the State into not fewer than four nor 
more than eight districts, in each of which should be 
a District Judge, appointed in the same manner and 
holding office by the same tenure as the Justices of the 
Supreme Court, and possessing the powers of a Justice 
of the Supreme Court in chambers. 

Martin Van Buren was chairman of the committee 
on the appointing power, and he reported in favor of 
the abolition of the discredited Council of Appoint- 
ment and the substitution of a system under which 
militia officers, excepting major-generals and the Adju- 
tant-General, should be elected by persons subject to 
military duty; the chief State officers, such as Secretary 
of State, Comptroller, etc., should be elected as United 
States Senators were, by the Legislature in joint session ; 
all judicial officers (except Justices of the Peace, who 
were to be elected by the people) and Sheriffs should be 
appointed by the Governor with the consent of the 
Senate; Clerks of courts should be appointed by the 
courts which they were to serve; and no judicial officer 
should be removed save by a majority vote of the Senate 
on recommendation of the Governor, for expressed 
cause. This plan was adopted after long debate, with 
two exceptions. It was decided to have Justices of th 



458 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1821 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Peace appointed by the Governor from lists submitted 
by the County Supervisors and Courts of Common 
Pleas, and to have Sheriffs and County Clerks elected 
by the people. 

After these and other questions had been separately 
debated and settled, the convention on November 10, 
1821, overwhelmingly voted to adopt the revised Con- 
stitution as a whole. Only eight votes were recorded in 
the negative, including those of Peter Augustus Jay and 
Abraham Van Vechten. These eight were irrecon- 
cilably opposed to the extension of the suffrage and to 
the discrimination against colored men. They and 
sixteen others declined to sign the instrument after it 
had been adopted. The convention then adopted a 
brief but eloquent address to the people of the State, 
drafted by Erastus Root, commending the revised Con- 
stitution to their favorable consideration. It then 
adjourned without day. To complete the record it 
may here be added that in February, 1822, the revised 
Constitution was ratified by the people of the State at 
a special election, by the decisive vote of 74,732 ayes 
and 41,043 nays, and that it went into effect on Decem- 
ber 31, 1822. 

The changes thus effected in the State government 
were radical and sweeping, and must be considered to 
have been all for the better. Perhaps the most import- 
ant reform of all was the abolition of the Councils of 
Appointment and of Revision, and of the power of the 
Governor to prorogue the Legislature. The abolition 
of the property qualification for white voters was 
another important advance in pure democracy, as was 



18221 A NEW CONSTITUTION 459 

also the considerable extension of the franchise. A note- 
worthy vindication of DeWitt Clinton's canal policy 
was seen in the constitutional recognition of the canal 
system of the State and the creation of a permanent 
Board of Canal Commissioners, to be a department of 
the State government. The date of the State elections 
was also changed from April to November, and the 
term of the Governor was reduced from three years to 
two. This last-named provision shortened DeWitt 
Clinton's term, making it end on January 1, 1823, 
instead of July 1, 1824. 

The Forty-fifth Legislature assembled at Albany on 
January 2, 1822, still, of course, under the old Constitu- 
tion. The Bucktails were in control of the Assembly, 
and elected Samuel B. Romaine, of New York City, to 
be Speaker. The Governor's address was unusually 
long, and was devoted to practical topics of constructive 
legislation. He made only a brief reference to the new 
Constitution, expressing no opinion as to its merits, for 
the reason that if was then being considered by the 
people of the State in advance of their voting upon it, 
and it would be improper for him to do anything which 
might influence their decision upon it. He dwelt at 
some length upon the agricultural interests of the State, 
and upon the desirability of providing for their pro- 
ducts an ampler and more profitable domestic market, 
instead of looking so much to the foreign export trade. 
This was to be effected by the development of means 
of coast and inland transportation, and also by the adop- 
tion of a protective tariff system which would stimulate 



460 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1822 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

American manufacturing industries and thus increase 
the demand for agricultural products. 

He gave, naturally, much attention to the canals of 
the State, congratulating the Legislature upon the prog- 
ress which had been made in their construction and 
anticipating the completion of the Erie and Champlain 
canals during the year 1823. He called attention to the 
canals which were projected in the new States of Ohio 
and Illinois, and recommended that the influence of 
New York in Congress should be exerted in the direc- 
tion of securing national aid for them. He also recom- 
mended that such influence should be given toward 
persuading the national government to enlarge and 
beautify the capital city of Washington. Other topics 
to which he addressed himself were the public schools, 
the militia, and the need of reform in criminal juris- 
prudence. Finally, assuming this to be the last 
address which he should ever make before the Legisla- 
ture, he said: 

"Whatever diversity of opinion may exist, I am per- 
suaded that we will all cooperate with a sincere and 
entire devotion to our solemn and momentous duties, 
in cherishing a spirit of conciliation and forbearance, 
and in cultivating that respect which we owe to each 
other and to ourselves." 

That was patriotic counsel. Unhappily, it did not 
prevail. The bitterness of the Bucktails against Clin- 
ton was not to be assuaged. A Bucktail Assembly- 
man, Mr. Ulshoeffer, immediately moved for a com- 
mittee to consider the answering of the Governor's 
speech, and was of course himself appointed its chair- 



1822] A NEW CONSTITUTION 461 

man. He soon presented a long and labored report, as 
unfavorable as possible to the Governor, and particu- 
larly censuring the Governor for making an address to 
the Legislature instead of sending in a written mes- 
sage. In that Clinton was, of course, only following 
the invariable custom of his predecessors since the 
organization of the State. It had also been the custom 
of the President of the United States thus to address 
Congress, during the first twelve years of our constitu- 
tional life. Moreover, DeWitt Clinton himself, in his 
first address to the Legislature, had referred to the 
subject, had explained that he adhered to the custom 
of personal address merely because it seemed to him to 
be more respectful to the Legislature than the sending 
of a written message would be, and had assured the 
Legislature that he did not desire or expect it to make 
any formal address in reply, such as the earlier Legis- 
latures had invariably done. 

Mr. Ulshoefrer's attack upon the Governor was 
therefore most uncalled for and can be attributed to no 
other motive than personal and partisan spite. He 
concluded his report with the moving of a resolution, 
which had been adopted by the preceding Assembly, 
denouncing the making of a personal speech by the 
Governor and the returning of a reply by the Legisla- 
ture as a "remnant of royalty" which "ought to be 
abolished." On this there was an animated debate, in 
which many of the Bucktails showed that they were not 
willing to go so far in hostility to the Governor. One 
of the few Clintonians, Mr. McKown, moved as a 
substitute that the report of the special committee be not 



462 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1822 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

approved, that the committee be dismissed from further 
consideration of the subject, and that the old custom 
of formally replying to the Governor's address, which 
was dropped by the preceding Legislature, be not 
restored. This substitute motion ultimately prevailed, 
but the unpleasant effect of Mr. Ulshoeffer's report 
and motion marred the remainder of the session. 

Although the new Constitution, when adopted and 
made effective, would abolish the Council of Appoint- 
ment, that body would have to be maintained until that 
reform was effected, and accordingly on January 10 the 
Assembly proceeded to elect the last such Council that 
was ever to exist. It selected, naturally, four Buck- 
tails, or at least opponents of the Governor. They were 
John Townsend, of the Southern district; Charles E. 
Dudley, of the Middle; Benjamin Mooers, of the East- 
ern; and Perry G. Childs, of the Western. Mr. 
Mooers, it will be recalled, had been elected to the 
Senate as a Clintonian, but had gone over to the Buck- 
tail side, and had been the Bucktail candidate for 
Lieutenant-Governor on the ticket with ex-Governor 
Tompkins against Clinton. This Council had very 
little to do, since all the offices were already filled with 
Bucktails or anti-Clintonians, and there was no occa- 
sion to remove any of them. 

Several important acts were passed by this Legisla- 
ture in anticipation of the new Constitution. Assembly- 
men were apportioned among the counties, in accord- 
ance with the whole number provided for in the new 
Constitution. Another measure relieved the State of 
all responsibility for the lotteries which had been 



1822] A NEW CONSTITUTION 463 

established for the benefit of Union College and other 
worthy institutions, and turned over to the managers of 
those institutions the task of directing them. There- 
upon, under the leadership of Dr. Eliphalet Nott, of 
Union College, an arrangement was made with Archi- 
bald Mclntyre, the former State Comptroller, and John 
B. Yates, to be the managers of all lotteries conducted 
for the benefit of those institutions. The Legislature 
adjourned without day on April 17. 

Under the provisions of the new Constitution the 
April elections were now abolished. None were held 
in 1822, the contest at the polls being deferred until the 
Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Accord- 
ingly the Legislative caucus for the selection of candi- 
dates for Governor and Lieutenant-Governor was held 
at a much later date than usual. The only caucus held 
was that of the Bucktails, who by this time were of so 
overwhelming strength that any opposition to them 
seemed futile. There were numerous candidates for 
the Governorship, inspired and encouraged by the 
practical certainty that whoever was named by the 
Bucktails would be elected, and, of course, that under 
the new Constitution the Governor would possess far 
greater power than ever before, particularly over 
appointments to office. Indeed, never before in the 
history of the State had there been so many aspirants 
or so much wirepulling, intriguing, and maneuvering 
to control the nominating caucus. 

It is an interesting illustration of a certain phase 
of political obsession that Daniel D. Tompkins was 
willing to accept the nomination, although his election 



464 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [ig 2 2 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

would have necessitated his resignation of the office of 
Vice-President of the United States, upon his second 
term in which he had entered a year before. This was 
partly, perhaps, because to his ardent and active disposi- 
tion the strenuous life of a Governor appealed more 
strongly and congenially than the comparative calm 
and political neutrality of the president of the Senate. 
Doubtless, however, he desired the "vindication" which 
he imagined such election would give him, on account 
both of the controversy over his accounts with the State 
and also of his defeat by Clinton at the last election ; 
though to the impartial and detached historian any such 
"vindication" seems entirely superfluous. 

Another candidate was Erastus Root, who in bril- 
liancy of intellect, sincerity of patriotism, and purity of 
character was the peer of any contemporary, and whose 
great services to the State gave him abundant title to 
recognition and preferment. Nathan Sanford, one of 
the foremost jurists of the time, was another candidate. 
So was Peter B. Porter, a man of commanding worth. 
So was Henry Seymour, who had distinguished him- 
self in important public works. None of these were, 
however, regarded with favor by the coterie of men 
who were dictating and with iron hand controlling the 
policy of the party. Only two candidates were 
seriously considered, and between them the party rulers 
were not long in making a decision. These were 
Colonel Samuel Young, and Justice Joseph C. Yates, 
of the Supreme Court. The former, of whom we have 
already heard in these pages, was an able lawyer, a 
powerful orator, and an experienced legislator and 



1822] A NEW CONSTITUTION 46s 

administrator. He was also a master of political 
tactics, though his extreme radicalism and his intoler- 
ance toward all who disagreed with him alienated many 
who otherwise would have been his enthusiastic sup- 
porters. Justice Yates had been considered by the 
leaders as a candidate in 1820, but had prudently 
declined to enter the contest against Clinton. He was 
a modest, cautious man, of exceptional personal charm 
and irreproachable character, though of mediocre 
ability and passive rather than aggressive disposition. 
He was well fitted by temperament to be a Justice of the 
Supreme Court, but not well fitted to be Governor. 

There was no question that the majority of the Buck- 
tail party and also a majority of its influential leaders 
would have preferred Colonel Young. But majorities 
did not count. The party was controlled by an oli- 
garchy at the State capital — of which we shall hear 
much more hereafter, — and that body decided upon 
Justice Yates as the most "available" candidate. That 
meant, so far as the electoral campaign was concerned, 
that he would be the easiest of all candidates to elect, 
since he had no enemies and since Chief-Justice Spencer 
and most of the Clintonian leaders were quite ready 
to support him. Indeed, since it was a foregone con- 
clusion that Clinton would not seek reelection, Yates 
was practically the Clintonian candidate. It was good 
policy to nominate him, therefore, partly in order to 
avoid Clintonian opposition, and partly in order thus to 
reunite the Democratic party. So far as the prospec- 
tive administration was concerned, it meant that as 
Governor Mr. Yates would be more readily compliant 



466 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [i 82 2 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

with the wishes of the party "bosses" than tb 
immeasurably more independent and aggressive Colo 
nel Young. One of the foremost promoters of Justice 
Yates's candidacy was John Van Ness Yates, a distant 
relative, whose place as Secretary of State at Albany, 
whose engaging personality, and whose political 
acumen and industry gave him great influence. 

The outcome of the Legislative caucus was that Mr. 
Yates was nominated for Governor by a decisive 
majority over Colonel Young. This was satisfactory 
to the party generally, but it was a bitter disappoint- 
ment to Colonel Young. True, he affected to regard 
it lightly, saying in a jocose maner that if the State could 
get along without him he would try to get along with- 
out the State. Also, he offered Justice Yates his con- 
gratulations. But beneath the surface the defeat 
rankled, and thereafter he neglected no opportunity to 
intrigue against his victorious rival, and it was in no 
small measure through his enmity, all the more deadly 
because partly concealed, that Governor Yates's admin- 
istration ended in political failure. The caucus with- 
out contest nominated Erastus Root for Lieutenant- 
Governor. 

It was an anomaly that DeWitt Clinton was denied 
renomination and election. He had shown himself one 
of the ablest constructive statesmen that had ever 
occupied the Governorship, and his great canal 
scheme, the greatest public work ever undertaken by 
New York, was approaching successful completion 
amid the universal plaudits of even those who had for- 
merly most bitterly opposed it. Yet political influences 



1822] A NEW CONSTITUTION 



467 



igainst him were so strong that his friends realized that 
his reelection would be impossible, and they so advised 
him early in the year. He did not take kindly to the 
prospect of being shelved. His strong impulse was to 
defy the hostile leaders, ignore the advice of friends, 
and enter the campaign with all his old audacity. But 
in the end he yielded, persuaded that candidacy would 
surely end in humiliating defeat. In order to "let him 
down easily," several of his chief political lieutenants 
adopted resolutions appropriately laudatory of his 
public services and appointed a committee to inquire 
his wishes concerning a renomination. To that inquiry 
he replied that he had decided not to let his name be 
used as that of a candidate. Thereupon his friends, 
and all who were left of the disintegrating Clintonian 
party, determined to put no candidate into the field, but 
rather to favor the nomination of Justice Yates by the 
Bucktails. 

The reasons for this elimination of Clinton, after five 
years of singularly efficient service, are not difficult to 
discern. He was a competent statesman, but a poor 
politician. He was deficient in tact, in tolerance, in the 
spirit of accomodation, in that indefinable quality 
known as "personal magnetism." He was cold, arro- 
gant, dictatorial, animated by the spirit of "rule or 
ruin." He was a great head of the State. He was no 
leader of a party. However, he was an indomitable 
philosopher, and in the very hour of his rejection he 
meditated upon a future recouping of his fortunes. 
At the height of the campaign he predicted that the 



468 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1822 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

old party lines would thereafter be broken, the old party 
names would vanish, the Legislative caucus system for 
making nominations would be abandoned, and that 
Yates, Van Buren, and their associates would in time 
"go down like the stick of a rocket." How completely 
that prophecy was fulfilled in the course of only a 
couple of years, we shall hereafter see. 

Justice Yates was not, however, to be without a com- 
petitor. The Clintonians named no candidate, and the 
Federalists named none. But Solomon Southwick 
named himself. That erratic genius, one of the most 
gifted and most fantastic men of his time, had had 
a brilliant and influential career as a journalist, as the 
editor successively of the Albany Register, the Plough- 
boy, and the Christian Visitant. He had for years been 
Clerk of the Assembly. He had been Sheriff, State 
Printer, and postmaster at Albany. But he had been 
tried for bribery and removed from the office of State 
Printer, and dismissed from the postmastership for 
defalcation. Various real estate speculations and other 
enterprises had proved unprofitable, and he had become 
practically penniless. In such circumstances he con- 
ceived the extravagant notion of putting himself for- 
ward for the Governorship of the State. He secured 
as his chief campaign worker Thurlow Weed, then a 
bright young journalist at Manlius but destined to 
become one of the foremost political leaders of the 
State, and got him to canvass the western part of the 
State in his behalf. But Weed soon recognized the 
madness of the undertaking. "He was insanely anxious 



B- 31 



1822] A NEW CONSTITUTION 469 

to become Governor, and all the more insane because 
of its impossibility," said Weed, long afterward. "He 
had been editing with great industry and ability the 
Plouyhboy and the Christian Visitant, and beguiled 
himself with a confident belief that farmers and Chris- 
tians, irrespective of party, would sustain him. . . . 
Years afterward I learned that in politics, as in almost 
everything else, Mr. Southwick was blinded by his 
enthusiasm and credulity." 

True, there were those who believed that Southwick 
would win. Even DeWitt Clinton — mirabile dictu! — 
was among them. Only a few weeks before the elec- 
tion he spoke confidently of the impending defeat of 
Yates. The outcome was, however, that Yates was 
elected by a more nearly unanimous vote than any other 
ever cast for Governor of New York. He received 
128,493 votes, to Southwick's 2,910. At the same time 
the Bucktails elected every member of the State Senate, 
and nearly nine-tenths of the Assembly. 

In such fashion was the first great era in the poli- 
tical history of New York ended. For forty-six years 
it had been under its first Constitution, and its politics 
had been marked with the divisions and rivalries first 
of Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and then of the 
Federalists, the Democratic-Republican party, and the 
various factional elements of the latter organization. 
Now a new Constitution was to prevail, together with a 
new alignment of parties and new party nomenclature. 
Anti-Federalists, Republicans, Martling's Men, Buck- 
tails, and what not were to be known simply as Demo- 



470 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL [1822 

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

crats, and in opposition to them was to arise from the 
ruins of Federalism the great Whig party. A new era 
had dawned in New York government and politics, 
though it was still to be dominated for a time by the old 
leaders. 








y- \ * S * * r 



0* 



4 cu 









^^ 












. : >°-^ 












^ 






ISP- C^ ^ A*^* 

• • A U *Z* <V" o « o „ <$> 






?; A V *V \f;C ; 
.-* A <* ™-' ^ tl . V 












•V* DOBBSBROS. <-<V »;«'„ ^.A V 

IIIPU«. •INDINO 






<*- 



ST. AUGUSTINE .<* 

_^^_ FLA. "<»* <*U> r ° Ctt^* 

^^32084 



